Playing Outdoors in The Early Years, 2nd Edition (PDFDrive)

Playing Outdoors in the Early Years
Also available from Continuum
Learning Through Play, Jacqueline Duncan and Madelaine

Lockwood
Let’s All Play – Activities for Communication, Language and Literacy,
Jenny Roe
Physical Development in the Early Years, Lynda Woodfield
Reflective Playwork, Jacky Kilvington and Alison Wood
The Value of Play, Perry Else
Childminder’s Guide to Play and Activities, Allison Lee
Playing Outdoors
in the Early Years
2nd edition
ROS GARRICK
Continuum International Publishing Group
The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX
80 Maiden Lane, Suite 704, New York NY 10038
www.continuumbooks.com
Copyright © Ros Garrick 2009
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or
retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers.
Ros Garrick has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
ISBN: 978-1-8470-6547-6 (paperback)
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Garrick, Ros.
Playing outdoors in the early years / Ros Garrick. – 2nd ed.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 978-1-84706-547-6 (pbk.)
1. Early childhood education–Activity programs. 2. Outdoor
recreation for children. I. Title.
LB1139.35.A37G37 2009
372.21--dc22
2009008263
Typeset by Kenneth Burnley, Wirral, Cheshire
Printed and bound in Great Britain by . . .
Contents
Acknowledgements vii
Preface viii
Introduction ix
1 A rationale for outdoor play in early childhood

education and care 1
Children’s voices 1
Can you remember? 2
What are children’s views? 4
Changing landscapes 6
Children’s health 7
An environment for all kinds of learning 9
Gender issues 10
2 The place of the garden in the historical development of

early childhood education 13
Friedrich Froebel 15
Margaret McMillan 16
Susan Isaacs 17
The historical tradition of play 18
3 Perspectives on young children and outdoor play 21
Psychological perspectives 22
Geographical perspectives 33
Sociological perspectives 35
Playwork perspectives 37
v
vi CONTENTS
4 Outdoor play decisions 39
Programme structure 40
1- and 2-year-old quarrels: managing conflict 43
Unpredictable weather 46
All kinds of weather 49
Messy play 54
Gender 56
Inclusion 60
Listening to children 64
Health and safety 68
5 Planning an outdoor curriculum in the early years 73
Curriculum frameworks internationally 75

The observation and planning cycle 81
Long-term planning: designing the outdoor space 82
Defining spaces 84
Long-term planning: areas of provision 86
Evaluating long-term plans 96
Medium-term planning for outdoor learning 98
Short-term planning for outdoor learning 104
The adult role 106
6 Outdoor learning in early-years curricula internationally 115
The Villetta pre-school in Reggio Emilia 116

Forest Schools 117
Growing Schools in England 119
Sources of advice, guidance and support 121
References 123
Index 131
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank those I have worked with in schools, early-

years settings and the advisory services in Leeds, Sheffield and
Rotherham for sharing their practice and their thinking about
outdoor play. In particular, I would like to thank the staff at Park-
lands Children’s Centre in Leeds for their hospitality and generosity
in allowing me to learn from their practice. The photographs in this
book are of the very well used outdoor areas at Parklands, both the
area for 2- to 3-year-olds and the area for 3- to 5-year-olds. I would
also like to thank colleagues at Sheffield Hallam University for their
encouragement and constructive comments. Finally, I would like to
thank my family for their support and good humour.
vii
Preface
This book is for all those training to work with young children in
early childhood education and care settings. It presents a rationale
for outdoor play as an essential feature of the early childhood cur-
riculum and explores how effective practice flows from an under-
standing of research and theoretical perspectives. These include
perspectives on children’s development; perspectives on children’s
agency in their social worlds; perspectives on the role of adults
in children’s learning; and perspectives on the development of
environments for play. The outdoor curriculum raises several chal-
lenging issues for practitioners which are recognized and explored.
However, the book also includes many examples of practice that
exemplify the power of high-quality outdoor play and outdoor
experiences to enhance the lives of children, their families and their
communities.
viii
Introduction
You can play in the secret house out there! Do you know how?
Get some of those cardboard pieces you see around sometimes,
you know? Cover the ends of the tunnel with them and then
play and do anything you want, even hide and seek! There are
monsters and ghosts in the tunnel! (But just for fun.) (Diana
Municipal Pre-school 1990, p. 2)
The pioneers of early childhood education, including Froebel,

Montessori and Margaret McMillan, placed a special emphasis on
the provision of outdoor play and learning environments for young
children (Bilton 2002). Many contemporary practitioners, working in
different cultures and traditions, also strive to promote high-quality
outdoor learning opportunities for young children. At the Diana pre-
school, in the Italian town of Reggio Emilia, for example, 5- and 6-
year-olds take pleasure in describing the fun of physical, imaginative
and creative play in their school grounds to incoming 3-year-olds
(Diana Municipal Pre-school 1990). In Wales, children from a recep-
tion class and special teaching facility in an area of social and econ-
omic disadvantage experience the wildness of the natural world as
they explore a challenging woodland environment (Maynard 2007).
As a further example, babies who are crawling and learning to walk
in the garden of the Universal Studios Child Development Center in
Los Angeles, California, enjoy rich sensory experiences, including
the textures and changing temperatures of smooth boulders (Curtis
and Carter 2003). Each example is evidence of children engaged in
rich, holistic learning experiences in an outdoor environment.
There are many further examples of early-years practitioners
developing challenging experiential education for young children
in outdoor settings. However, such practice is far from universal.
Even where statutory guidance identifies outdoor play as an essen-
tial feature of the early childhood curriculum (DCSF 2008; Welsh
ix
x INTRODUCTION
Assembly Government 2008), differences in levels of provision may

be significant. In England, for example, a recent review of childcare
and early education provision identified much successful provision,
including provision for babies and toddlers, where ‘outdoor areas
are made accessible to all children and are used in all types of
weather’ (Ofsted 2008, p. 24). However, currently there is no require-
ment in England to develop outdoor areas as a condition of registra-
tion, only an expectation that providers without outdoor space will
use communal facilities such as parks, and these can be some dis-
tance from settings. In a study (Mooney et al. 2008) of approaches to
health in early-years settings in England, some interviewees des-
cribed the challenge of promoting physical activity where settings
had limited or no outdoor play space. Even in settings where
outdoor areas exist, children’s use may be infrequent, the quality of
environments poor, and/or opportunities for learning limited. In a
recent Canadian study (Herrington 2008), researchers asked 78 early
childhood educators from 14 settings to evaluate their outdoor play
space, and 79 per cent identified a lack of sensori stimuli such as
plants or water. In addition, many participants identified an excess
of concrete and asphalt, which tended to create a ‘cold, hard place
that was very loud and often lacking in colour’ (Herrington 2008, p.
75). Such limitations suggest that the potential of outdoor play and
learning in accessible and high-quality play spaces is not universally
recognized.
Commitment to outdoor play in the early years can vary at both
policy and practice levels. Countries vary in their policy commit-
ment to outdoor play in ways that are likely to relate to longstanding
curricular traditions. For example, the Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) thematic review of policy in
this area (OECD 2006) identifies an early education tradition, in
France and several English-speaking countries, which focused on
‘readiness for school’. In these countries, national policy is more
likely to identify indoors as the main learning environment, desig-
nating outdoors as primarily a recreational space. In contrast, coun-
tries such as Norway, Denmark and Sweden, influenced by the
Nordic social pedagogy tradition, are more likely to accord ‘equal
pedagogical importance’ (OECD 2006, p. 141) to both kinds of space,
with a consequent financial commitment to the outdoors.
Cultural traditions influence individual practitioners and man-
agers, alongside policy recommendations and prescription. Maynard
INTRODUCTION xi
and Waters (2007, p. 262), reporting on the reluctance of a group of

Welsh early-years teachers to provide outdoor play in wet and
wintry weather, hypothesize the influence of a Welsh and British
cultural identity that can include ‘cultural resistance to the perceived
discomforts of the outdoor environment and a concern to protect
children, and themselves, from these discomforts’. Ouvry (2000)
examines reasons commonly given for limited outdoor play provi-
sion in some English settings, highlighting weather conditions as
well as safety and staffing ratios, health issues and the difficulties of
access to outdoor space. Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL)
research findings (Ellis 2002; Adams et al. 2004) identify further
issues, suggesting cultural traditions as a barrier to legislated
change. Researchers questioned ATL members in England and Wales
about the implementation of new statutory guidance with a high
focus on outdoor learning. Despite the official privileging of outdoor
learning, 61 per cent of teachers identified the use of outdoor areas
as problematic, and a significant number reported a lack of manage-
ment support for outdoor play and inadequate guidance for the
development of outdoor learning environments. Different cultural
traditions and recurring contradictions between policy and practice
suggest that outdoor play remains a contested feature of early-years
education and care.
This book begins by examining the rationale for outdoor play in
early childhood education and care (Chapter 1). The main focus is on
children up to 5 years but with some consideration of outdoor play
in education and care settings for children up to 7 years. The book
moves on to consider the special place of the garden and outdoor
experiences in the historical development of the sector (Chapter 2).
Following this, the book examines key theories that support an
understanding of young children, and considers the implications for
learning and teaching outdoors (Chapter 3). Chapter 4 examines
some of the issues related to young children’s experiences and learn-
ing in outdoor environments. In subsequent chapters, approaches to
planning for children’s development and learning are discussed, and
examples of outdoor learning in early childhood curricula inter-
nationally are introduced. The book concludes with information
about organizations and agencies that can support the development
of practice in this challenging area.
This page intentionally left blank
A rationale for outdoor
1 play in early childhood
education and care
We need to be full of wonder at what children say and do, and

hence curious to continue listening to and hearing what they
say and do. (Dahlberg et al. 2006, p. 135)
Children’s voices
As policy-makers, researchers and practitioners work through the
implications of recent international and national laws and conven-
tions relating to children’s rights, many are striving to listen more
attentively to children’s voices. Internationally, the UN Convention
on the Rights of the Child 1989, in particular Articles 12 and 13,
establishes an expectation that adults working with and for children
should take account of children’s distinctive perspectives, including
those of the very young (Franklin 2002). Additionally, aspects of
national legislation reinforce this approach. For example, the Child-
care Act 2006 for England and Wales includes a new duty for local
authorities (LAs) to take account of the views of young children and
their parents when developing and evaluating childcare services.
Thomas (2001) identifies three compelling arguments that underpin
the recent emphasis on children’s rights: when we, as adults, listen
to children’s voices, we are respecting the child’s right to be heard;
we enhance children’s lives; and we can improve the quality of
policies and practice.
For students and practitioners examining the rationale for outdoor
play in the early-years curriculum, this is a helpful approach. We
need to attend to children’s voices, as well as curriculum documents
and official guidance. However, as adults we all too easily lose touch
with the world as seen through children’s eyes, even when working
in close proximity to children. As we seek children’s perspectives on
outdoor play, personal memories can provide a powerful starting
point.
1
2 PLAYING OUTDOORS IN THE EARLY YEARS
Can you remember?
REFLECTION POINT
What were your favourite places as a young child?
Choose one special place:
• What sensory experiences can you remember? What
sounds, smells, tastes, textures, colours, movement?
• What emotions can you remember?
a • What people can you remember?

• What activities can you remember?
A group of undergraduate students on an Early Childhood Studies

course was invited to reflect on five places they particularly liked
and five they particularly disliked as children. Students and their
tutor shared many happy and exciting memories. They also shared
memories that evoked past feelings of anxiety, fear, and, in many
cases, unpleasant boredom.
It is salutary to note some of the disliked places and experiences
common to even happy childhoods. Many students recalled dreary,
interminable shopping expeditions, with endless queues in shops,
banks and at bus-stops. Some recalled constraining visits to relatives,
cooped up indoors with little to do. This reminds us that much of
young children’s lives is spent in adult worlds, tuned in to adult
needs and desires that may not match their own. Less tangible but no
less intense were the memories of fear and anxiety attached to dark
and sometimes hidden places: under beds, on the landing or down a
cellar. This reminds us that early childhood is a period of intense
emotions of both a positive and negative kind.
Among the shared lists of favourite places, outdoor play spaces
featured strongly. Many students recalled pleasurable experiences in
parks and gardens. Mature students and their tutor shared addi-
tional memories of play beyond these domesticated confines. Mem-
ories dating back to the 1950s and 1960s were of wilder, more private
places, for example fields, woods and streams, sometimes miles
A RATIONALE FOR OUTDOOR PLAY 3
beyond the controlling gaze of adults. These recollections of wild

places were rare among the younger students and this provides
anecdotal support for the view that outdoor play experiences have
become increasingly constrained for children in the economically
rich, industrialized countries of the North (Morrow 2002). There
were clear differences across the generations, but nearly everyone
remembered at least one private and secret place that evoked power-
ful feelings of pleasure. Special places included a wild patch under
fruit trees at the end of a long garden, a tiny space behind a garden
shed and a spacious den hidden within tangled, overgrown bushes.
In a reflective account on memory and outdoor learning, Waite
(2007) considers how positive emotions of this kind, linked to recon-
structed, early memories of outdoor play, may act as a significant
motivator of lifelong learning. In a study that included a survey of
practitioners working with either pre-school (2–5 years) or primary
schoolchildren, 241 respondents (72 per cent of the sample) shared
memories of outdoor play as children. The majority (195) shared
mainly positive feelings, as with earlier studies, and only six
reported negative experiences. Most positive memories of the out-
doors included a social aspect, often with family members, including
both siblings and adults. In terms of context, adults most often
reported pleasurable memories of natural contexts, particularly
woodlands and trees, but also farms and gardens. Linked to these
natural contexts, active investigation featured as a positive feature of
many memories, with 36 adults remembering activities with animals
of varying sizes, ‘from worms to horses’ (Waite 2007, p. 339).
Challenging and adventurous activities, for example exploring
places, climbing trees and lighting fires, also featured among adults’
positive memories. These findings suggest some of the characteris-
tics of early, outdoor experiences that are remembered vividly and
often with positive effect.
As a final example, the salience of natural outdoor places and
things for adults is encapsulated in the striking art work (Illustration
1.1) created by staff and parents at Parklands Children’s Centre in
Leeds. Following a visit to Leeds City Art Gallery, a member of staff
worked with parents to create the wheel, with each contributor
selecting a natural object or objects of significance for their lives.
These objects were either related to memories of childhood or rele-
vant to current lives.
When planning outdoor experiences for young children, it is
Illustration 1.1: Art work
important to reflect on remembered outdoor experiences and the

special feelings retained by adults for natural places and things.
What are children’s views?

Informal research and more formal studies (Waite 2007) highlight
outdoor play in childhood as representing some of our most salient
and pleasurable memories as adults. Perhaps the adult’s rose-tinted
glasses reshape memories and play a part in creating such pleasur-
able images. However, studies of children in the here-and-now
provide support for this view, offering detailed accounts of the
outdoor places and experiences that young children like, as well as
REFLECTION POINT
What are children’s favourite outdoor places?
Think of a baby, toddler or young child who you know well.
• What sensory experiences do they enjoy outdoors, for
example sounds, smells, tastes, textures, colours, move-
ment?
• What actions or activities do they choose to repeat
outdoors?
• What emotions do they show outdoors?
• Who do they choose to play with outdoors?
the places they dislike. While relatively few studies focus primarily
on the views of children under 7, wider studies often include this age
group.
Hart’s (1979) important early study of children’s outdoor play in a
small American town was framed within geographical perspectives
on childhood. Hart was interested in the ways in which children
used the immediate and wider outdoor environment of the town in
which to play and socialize. As an ethnographic researcher, he lived
as a member of the close community for two years, studying both the
children’s use of space and their personal feelings about place. Hart
used a combination of traditional and innovative methods, including
methods that engaged children as co-researchers. An important
finding was the importance that children attached to making special
places of their own, the ‘forts and houses’ they regularly constructed
in hidden places.
More recently, Millward and Whey (1997) studied children’s play
on English housing estates, seeking data to inform urban planning.
Observations and interviews highlight children’s enjoyment of both
physically active play and quieter games. In particular, children
value the opportunities to socialize and make choices afforded by
diverse environments. This valuing of social experience outdoors
echoes the emphasis on pleasurable social experience encapsulated
in adult memories of outdoor play (Waite 2007).
Turning to young children’s perspectives on play in early-years
settings, Clark and Moss (2001, 2005) have developed a methodolog-

ically innovative approach (the Mosaic approach) that brings
together a mosaic of research methods and invites children’s partici-
pation. Methods include observations, interviews, tours of a setting,
map-making, and children’s photographs used in various ways, for
example to elicit children’s reflections on their nursery. Findings
from a number of studies using this approach (Clark 2007) highlight
the special and positive feelings that young children sometimes have
for what adults perceive to be very ordinary places. For Gary, aged
3, a circular bench on a small piece of grass had the special properties
of a magical cave, while a small piece of ground by the side of the
shed was another important place (Clark and Moss 2001). Identify-
ing patterns across studies, Clark (2007, pp. 356–8) highlights the
value that children give to ‘private places’, to enjoy alone or with a
small group of friends, from which they can survey the world.
Children also value ‘social spaces’ providing a venue for child-led
activities, ‘personal spaces’ with links to the child’s own identity, and
‘imaginary spaces’ which can be the focus for imaginative games and
stories. A single outdoor space may be rich in potential for different
kinds of experience and feelings. These studies present strong voices
from children, evidencing the importance of outdoor places and
experiences in their lives.
They also highlight the importance of finding ways to enable
children to communicate their own perspectives on outdoor play.
Children’s views can inform our efforts to improve the effectiveness
of outdoor provision. A number of other interlinking factors support
arguments for an outdoor play curriculum. These will be discussed
in the rest of this chapter.
Changing landscapes
Karen Miller (1989, p. 9) describes the sensual pleasures of outdoor
play during a childhood lived on the edge of a Michigan lake,
‘digging, sorting stones, finding snails, making mountains, rivers
and dams, drawing pictures with a stick, dribbling mud and enjoy-
ing all the different textures at my fingertips’. She comments regret-
fully that contemporary children have diminished opportunities for
such independent exploration of natural landscapes.
Anecdotal observations such as this gain support from environ-
mental sociologists who study children’s attitudes to the natural
world. Nabhan (1994b) reports that even children living in close prox-
imity to nature have diminished first-hand experience of the natural
world. Many Anglo, Hispanic and American Indian children, living
in American country and desert areas, are keenly interested in con-
servation issues. However, they gain more information about
plants, animals and landscapes from the media and school than from
exploring local environments. These children are far less likely to
explore natural spaces than previous generations. Nabhan (1994b,
p. 11) presents the experience of children in the city as bleaker still:
. . . an increasingly large proportion of inner-city children will

never gain adequate access to unpeopled places, neither food-
producing field nor wild lands. They will grow up in a world
where asphalt, concrete and plaster cover more ground than
shade-providing shrubs and their resident songbirds.
Davis and Elliot (2004) argue that the disappearance of opportuni-

ties for engagement with the natural world may have significant
implications for children’s environmental understanding. They
advocate this as an important concern for early childhood educators
who have a responsibility to ensure that young children gain direct
experience of the natural world to nurture a sense of environmental
responsibility.
Nevertheless, we should be wary of idealizing the childhood land-
scapes of the past. The history of early childhood education includes
many educators who were committed to providing the experience
of natural environments for children growing up in bleak and un-
healthy cities (Bilton 2002). Given commitment and imagination,
practitioners today can similarly develop outdoor environments that
nourish children’s environmental understanding. This is an impor-
tant part of the rationale for outdoor play.
Children’s health
The impact of changing landscapes on lifestyles is one of a number
of factors contributing to concerns for children’s health and well-
being in the twenty-first century. Gill (2008) explains how environ-
mental and social change in the United Kingdom, including increase
in car ownership, decreasing local, green spaces and the fragmenta-
tion of communities, has limited opportunities for children from
across social classes to participate in outdoor play and activities.

A British Medical Journal (BMJ) (2001) editorial argues that such
environmental change, alongside changes to family eating patterns
and an increase in television viewing among young children, has
contributed to an epidemic of childhood obesity and related health
problems across England, the United States and other countries. In
the United States, a form of diabetes that usually appears in adult-
hood is appearing for the first time among overweight children.
Shell’s (2003) review of research also demonstrates the link between
lifestyle and health, with clear associations between the hours of
television watched and children’s risk of becoming overweight or
obese. Childhood asthma is another serious and growing health
problem, again a negative consequence of changes in environments
and technology (Robb 2001).
Much evidence suggests that lifestyle attitudes, in particular diet
and patterns of activity, are shaped in childhood. Mooney et al.
(2008) explain how early-years settings may have an important role
to play, alongside national campaigns, in reversing current British
trends. However, these authors do highlight a need for additional
resources if early-years settings are to play a significant role in the
achievement of ‘Be Healthy’ outcomes, as one of the set of five out-
comes for children and young people that make up the Every Child
Matters: Change for Children (DfES 2004) programme. Similarly, in
responding to the obesity epidemic in the United States, Burdette
and Whitaker (2005) argue for the need for health professionals to
share with parents the importance of unstructured, physically active
outdoor play in early childhood, arguing that ‘play’ is a more moti-
vating and positive term for use with parents than ‘exercise’ or
‘sport’. These terms may carry negative connotations of failed
weight reduction efforts for adults. Burdette and Whitaker (2005)
also argue for a new emphasis on physically active play in early-
years settings, for both physical health and improved cognitive,
social and emotional well-being. Well-planned outdoor spaces can
significantly increase the opportunities for young children to engage
in physically active play.
Children with health problems and/or limited experience of
active play can lack confidence in their own physical skills and
appear unmotivated to engage in active play. For these children,
encouragement to participate in sociable, group activities, for
example a ‘Bear Hunt’ obstacle course (Drake 2001) or large-scale
construction play, can build confidence, self-esteem and positive

dispositions towards active play. In addition, snacks, such as pieces
of raw or dried fruit, raw vegetables, breadsticks or cheese, eaten
picnic style in the outside area, can reinforce messages about healthy
lifestyles. A concern to take positive action in the face of societal pres-
sures undermining our children’s health, is an important part of the
rationale for outdoor play.
An environment for all kinds of learning

Outdoor environments afford rich opportunities for physical devel-
opment and learning. They provide opportunities for other valuable
experiences less easily or effectively provided indoors. Baldock
(2001), for example, suggests that the child’s early experience of
exploring large outdoor spaces may be critical to the development of
spatial abilities. English guidance (DCSF 2008) corresponds to this by
recommending that children are encouraged to use everyday words
to describe position when playing on outdoor apparatus or follow-
ing pathways, and a study by Williams (1994) provides support for
this guidance. Examining young children’s talk about play on a
nursery climbing frame, this study provides evidence of one child
making marked progress in the use of language to explore concepts
of speed, size and length over a six-month period of outdoor play.
Baldock (2001) also argues that outdoor spaces provide children
with greater opportunities for independence than more adult-
controlled indoor spaces. Stephenson’s (2002) research in a childcare
setting in New Zealand supports this view of the outdoors as a less
adult-controlled environment than the indoors. For example, chil-
dren outdoors were seen to be less subject to adult-led routines than
indoors. Additionally, younger children outdoors had more control
over the movement of natural materials such as sand, water and bark
chips, play which practitioners viewed as supporting transporting
schema, and older children had more freedom to move large-scale
equipment such as construction materials. Nind’s (2001) action
research, focused on language development in an early-years unit,
identifies another positive aspect of independent play outdoors. She
suggests that children may be more confident in their use of lan-
guage outdoors than indoors because of a perceived independence
from adult control.
Edgington (2002) presents a further argument for the distinctive
REFLECTION POINT
Think of a small-scale experience or activity suitable for a
baby, toddler or young child indoors:
• a sensory experience;
• an exploratory activity;
• a creative activity.
How could the experience or activity be transformed by
moving it outdoors and planning for a significant increase in
scale?
quality of outdoor environments, suggesting that the outdoors

allows for a valuable change of scale in children’s play.
Children’s exploration of percussion instruments exemplifies the
potential of an increase in scale. Constraints on volume and space
disappear outdoors, so that children can enjoy a wider range of
instruments and explore the sounds of large-scale percussion instru-
ments designed for the outdoors. These and other distinctive quali-
ties of outdoor environments, discussed throughout this book,
support the case for outdoor play.
Gender issues
Gender issues provide a final element of the rationale. The education
of boys is a fiercely debated issue in many countries, including the
UK. At the end of secondary schooling, girls are outperforming boys,
and concern for boys’ academic achievements is growing, although
its significance is contested when set in the context of differences
relating to social disadvantage (Connolly 2004). The British gov-
erment has identified an urgent need to ‘challenge the laddish
anti-learning culture’ of secondary education (Henry 2003, p. 16).
However, concern for the achievements of secondary school students
may come too late for effective action. In England, where an early
start to school is the norm (Sharp 2003) some gender-related differ-
ences in achievement are evident in children as young as 4 and 5
years (Connolly 2004).
It is useful to consider the evidence for early behavioural differ-

ences that may relate to approaches to learning and subsequent
achievement. Despite some change in attitudes over recent decades,
boys are often stereotyped as more aggressive, dominant, confident
and active than girls. Smith et al. (2003), reporting a study of child
rearing across six cultures (Kenya, Japan, India, the Philippines,
Mexico and the USA), report findings that match some of the stereo-
types, with boys on average demonstrating more aggressive and
dominant behaviour than girls, as well as higher levels of rough-and-
tumble play. It is important to note that these differences in behaviour
often related to different socialization pressures on children. For
example, girls were often required to do more nurturing tasks than
boys, such as caring for younger siblings. Additionally, although
studies may report differences across groups, there are also likely to be
significant variations in behaviour within any group of girls or boys.
However, given some evidence of early gender-related behavioural
differences (Smith et al. 2003), over-formalized approaches in early
education, including a lack of opportunities for physically active play,
may be problematic for some children, particularly boys. Meade
(2006) describes the importance of outdoor spaces in New Zealand
settings and the links to an early childhood curriculum aim to develop
positive dispositions towards learning for infants, toddlers and
pre-school children. The New Zealand curriculum focus is on learning
dispositions rather than pre-specified learning outcomes, and Meade
suggests that children’s engagement is particularly evident in outdoor
spaces. An outdoor curriculum, offering opportunities for active play,
exploration and the development of the language skills that underpin
later academic development, may have an important part to play in
supporting learning dispositions for both boys and girls. This pro-
vides a final and significant strand in the rationale for outdoor play.
Further Reading
Edgington, M. (2002), The Great Outdoors. London: Early Educa-
tion.
Waite, S. (2007), ‘‘‘Memories are made of this”: some reflections on

outdoor learning and recall’, in Education 3–13. 35 (4), pp.
333–47.
The place of the garden in
2 the historical development
of early childhood education
How often in later life will their thoughts go back to the first
garden, which surely must be as rich as we can make it. (McMil-
lan, in Bradford Education, 1995, p. 8)
There is a strong, contemporary case for the value of the outdoor cur-
riculum in early childhood settings. Before looking at the details of
implementation, it is helpful to examine two distinct strands within
the historical development of outdoor play. The first strand is repre-
sented by the playground or yard of the elementary school tradition
that can be traced back to the nineteenth century (Thomson 2005);
the second is the garden of the nursery school tradition. The intro-
ductory discussion focuses on the United Kingdom.
From the end of the nineteenth century into the early years of the
twentieth century, many 3–5-year-olds attended elementary schools.
Board of Education records for 1900 show 43 per cent of this age
group in schools that offered poor, working-class women a cheap
form of childminding (Bilton 2002). Although children joined desig-
nated ‘baby’ classes, the system made no concession to their age or
stage of development; group exercises in bleak schoolyards provided
only limited relief from regimented learning in cramped and stuffy
classrooms (Steedman 1990).
The ideology of this tradition continued to exert an influence on
British infant and primary education into the twentieth century. It
shaped a utilitarian view of the curriculum, a view that emphasized
the basic skills of literacy and numeracy, and a didactic approach to
teaching (Anning 1997). Many infant and primary schools, steeped
in this tradition, maintain a similarly utilitarian view of outdoor play.
Outdoor ‘playtimes’ are times for children to ‘let off steam’ between
periods of ‘work’ of a mainly sedentary nature. Despite curriculum
guidance relating to the youngest children in English schools (DCSF
2008), this remains a typical pattern for 5–7-year-olds, as well as for
13
some 4-year-olds. A seminal study by Titman (1994) highlighted how

many children play on featureless playgrounds or fields, with few
play resources. More recently, Thomson’s (2005) research into chil-
dren’s use of playgrounds identified high levels of adult prescription
on children’s use of space, limiting opportunities for social and phys-
ical play. In addition, within this tradition, staffing levels provide for
only basic levels of adult supervision, with limited opportunities for
adult–child interaction.
REFLECTION POINT
Think of a school or nursery playground that appears to match
playgrounds of the elementary school tradition. What opportu-
nities are there for:
• sensory experience;
• exploratory experience;
• creative experience
• movement experience;
• social experience?
How effectively does this environment support young
children’s learning and development?
How well does it promote young children’s well-being?
In contrast, from the early nineteenth century onwards, a tradition of

nursery education shaped a very different approach to outdoor play
across the US and Europe (Bilton 2002). There are significant differ-
ences in the ideologies and practice of key figures within this nursery
tradition, as discussed below. However, there is an important
continuity in the emphasis placed on the garden and its identific-
ation as a special place for young children‘s play and learning.
THE PLACE OF THE GARDEN 15
Friedrich Froebel
Friedrich Froebel’s educational practice and theories, developed
during the first half of the nineteenth century, were influential in
shaping the early history of the nursery garden. Growing up in
Germany, and with a boyhood interest in nature, Froebel began work
as an apprentice in forestry and later studied biology. His knowledge
and intense love of nature, as well as a deeply spiritual approach to
experience, informed an innovative approach to teaching. This was
crystallized in his work with very young children in the later years
of his life (Dudek 2000).
The garden was at the centre of Froebel’s educational work and, in
his first kindergarten, it was a very real experience in children’s lives.
However, the term ‘kindergarten’ also served as a metaphor for the
nurture of the young and, for Froebel, symbolized an ideal social
order. To encourage children to grow up in harmony with nature,
Froebel gave each child his or her own small garden to tend. Individ-
ual and communal gardens provided flowers and vegetables, which
were often given to neighbours. Children were encouraged to
observe plants and wildlife in the garden and were taken on excur-
sions into the surrounding countryside. The key aim was to nurture
children’s spiritual awareness. Froebel’s garden was also a place for
exercise and play. He devised special songs and movement games
for outdoor play, the forerunners of contemporary action rhymes
and circle games (Herrington 2001).
Froebel’s radical educational theories inspired many followers,
initially in Germany but, in the following decades, across Europe,
Japan and North America. Until the late nineteenth century, an
expanding kindergarten movement remained faithful to Froebel’s
romantic ideals. However, the history of gardens within this tradi-
tion is a complex one and, in the United States, Froebel’s spiritual
ideals and practice were changed significantly as kindergartens
became integrated into the public school system (Herrington 2001).
In recent decades, some American architects have sought inspir-
ation in Froebel’s ideas and there has been a revived interest in the
therapeutic value of gardens for children (Herrington 2001). Given
children’s diminishing levels of experience of nature and the high
incidence of mental health problems in some communities (Mooney
et al. 2008), Froebel’s focus on the garden as key to young children’s
spiritual development has continuing contemporary relevance.
Margaret McMillan
Margaret McMillan worked in England during the last decades of
the nineteenth and the first decades of the twentieth centuries and
was influenced by Froebelian thinking. She had a diverse career in
which children, in particular working-class children, provided a
central focus for her work. Growing up in the US and Scotland, she
was a prolific journalist, fiction writer, adult educator, socialist politi-
cian and social reformer. Her most significant achievements were
founding a school medical service within an emergent welfare state
and developing a nursery school in the slums of south London
(Steedman 1990).
From 1884, working as an Independent Labour Party represent-
ative on a Bradford school board, Margaret McMillan gained exten-
sive experience of the harsh, unhealthy home and working lives of
working-class children. She also gained experience of the bleak
elementary school tradition that did little to ameliorate these lives.
Following a move to London in the early 1900s, she pioneered a
new children’s clinic in Deptford, and here came to understand the
healing effects of outdoor environments and their potential for
transforming young working-class lives. After running successful
camp schools for older children, Margaret McMillan’s interest
turned to children under 5 years old. The Deptford nursery school
grew out of the first open-air baby camp, and it was here Margaret
McMillan developed her thinking about the nursery garden (Steed-
man 1990).
Over the next two decades, an extensive and beautiful garden
was created for the children of this impoverished south London
community. The key elements were shelter provided by varied
trees, bushes and terraced rock gardens; the sensory experiences of
a herb garden; a vegetable garden providing food for the children‘s
meals; cultivated and wildflower gardens; climbing equipment and
sandpits; and a heap, for children to explore assorted natural and
manufactured objects. The garden was designed to be on view to
the community, to provide pleasure and an educational experience
for parents as well as children (Bradford Education 1995).
As a highly educated woman, Margaret McMillan was conversant
with the most recent ideas about physical maturation, language
development and stages in children’s psychological development.
The nursery garden was designed as an arena within which scientific
and political ideas about childhood, in particular working-class

childhood, might be explored (Steedman 1990).
Margaret McMillan’s work focused on children’s physical and
emotional well-being as prerequisites for intellectual development.
This focus, as well as the contribution of the nursery garden to the
lives of a community, has continuing relevance. The third State of
London’s Children Report (McNeish and Scott 2007) identifies signifi-
cant numbers of children living in poverty today and confirms the
continuing negative impact of poverty on child health and well-
being, including children‘s mental health. It remains important for
practitioners to value outdoor environments for the part they play in
promoting children’s health and emotional well-being, as well as
improving the quality of life for families and communities.
Susan Isaacs
Susan Isaacs is a third important figure in this tradition. Working in
a very different social context, with highly advantaged children,
Susan Isaacs opened the Malting House School in a large house in
Cambridge in 1924. She was a trained infant teacher, as well as a
qualified philosopher, psychologist and practising psychoanalyst.
These distinctive perspectives contributed to the observations and
analyses of children’s learning that informed her teaching at the
small, private school. By the end of three years at the school, Susan
Isaacs had an extensive set of observations of children’s play, inves-
tigations and thinking that were to provide the basis for three influ-
ential books about young children’s learning (Drummond 2000).
The children, mostly aged between 2 and 8 years, had an unusual
degree of freedom at the school, with opportunities to explore expan-
sive outdoor environments. The garden and outdoor buildings
represented the main part of the learning environment, and some of
Susan Isaac’s most interesting and unusual writing focuses on
children’s experiences outdoors. The outdoor environment was
richly resourced and included areas that stimulated different kinds
of thinking: spaces for bonfires, bricks in a building area, and an
unusual seesaw that had movable weights fastened underneath. At
different times it included a number of common, domestic pets and
some more unusual ones, for example snakes, silkworms and sala-
manders. Alongside the animals, there were plants and fruit trees,
providing a diverse natural environment (Drummond 2000).
Susan Isaacs’ writings evidence the ways in which children’s

intense investigations and thinking about biological and spiritual
concepts, including death, can be supported by unconstrained expe-
riences outdoors. Her writings, for example the account of children
burying and digging up a dead pet rabbit, are likely to shock con-
temporary readers (Drummond 2000). Susan Isaacs moved from her
teaching role to a career at the Institute of Education, London, where
she had a significant influence on child-centred, early education
(Graham 2008). Her writings about the educational experiment at the
Malting House School have continuing relevance and can support
our understandings of the ways in which vivid first-hand experience
outdoors nourishes early cognitive and affective development.
The historical tradition of play

Discussion has focused on these three of many important figures in
the history of early childhood education because their work repre-
sents three important strands in the history of outdoor play and the
nursery garden, with continuing relevance. Froebel represents an
insistence on the spiritual needs of the young child; Margaret Mc-
Millan represents an emphasis on children’s physical health and
emotional well-being; and Susan Isaacs represents a preoccupation
with the young child’s intense intellectual and emotional life.
REFLECTION POINT
Think back to your childhood experiences outdoors.
Can you remember special outdoor places and experiences
that contributed to your
• spiritual needs;
• physical health;
• emotional well-being;
• intellectual life;
• emotional life?
Bruce (2005) and others have invoked shared principles from the
historical tradition of play as an inspiration for contemporary early-
years practitioners. However, Wood and Attfield (2005) warn against
invoking this tradition uncritically in support of a play-based
curriculum. They argue that, first, the tradition includes a mix of
disparate and often contradictory ideas; second, the pioneers of
nursery education developed their thinking in very different social
and cultural contexts from those of today; and third, the tradition
cannot substitute for theoretical accounts of play and young
children’s learning.
There are, however, continuities as well as discontinuities in child-
hood experience; and the preoccupations of these three figures –
Froebel, McMillan and Isaacs – have some continuing relevance.
The next chapter examines theoretical accounts of play and young
children’s learning, to support a deeper understanding of the role of
play and, in particular, outdoor play and experience in young
children’s lives.
Further Reading
Bilton, H. (2002), Outdoor Play in the Early Years: Management
and Innovation (2nd edn). London: David Fulton.
Dudek, M. (2000), Kindergarten Architecture: Space for the Imagi-

nation (2nd edn). London: Spon Press.
3 Perspectives on young
children and outdoor play
Outdoor play settings may be the one place where children

can independently orchestrate their own negotiations with the
physical and social environment and gain the clarity of selfhood
necessary to navigate later in life. (Perry 2001, p. 118)
Introducing discussion of the concept of play, Sutton-Smith (1997,

p. 1) makes the point that, although play is something we have all
experienced and know something about, we find it very hard to
provide clear or reliable definitions of play and to agree exactly what
play is: ‘There is little agreement among us, and much ambiguity.’
He goes on to examine the many different forms of animal, child
and adult play that take place in a wide range of settings, including
sports stadiums, theatres, carnival processions, casinos, and chil-
dren’s playgrounds. This book is about young children’s play and
primarily about play in outdoor spaces in early-years settings. The
extract introducing this section provides one perspective on young
children’s play, a sociological perspective that draws on understand-
ings of young children’s peer cultures. However, when focusing on
young children’s play, there are many different ways of understand-
ing play. The perspectives of developmental psychology, established
over the first decades of the twentieth century, have often governed
thinking about young children and early education (Walsh 2005;
Frost et al. 2008). However, Raban et al. (2003) suggest that, to
acknowledge the complexity of children’s development and learn-
ing, we need to consider the contribution made by multiple theoret-
ical perspectives.
Raban et al. (2003) identify five psychological perspectives on
children’s learning that support practitioners in developing a range
of ‘practice styles‘. In addition, there are other important perspec-
tives that can deepen and sometimes challenge our understanding of
children’s lives, including their play in education and care settings.
21
The intersecting and rich perspectives of sociology and geography

are important, as are recent playwork perspectives on children and
early childhood education. Frost et al. (2008, p. 57) explain why it is
important for practitioners to draw on a range of theories to under-
stand children’s play and learning, and to make appropriate deci-
sions about practice: ‘We must know the various theories that
provide us with ways of choosing what to look for and with ways of
making sense of what we see. Theories of play become our lenses for
observation and reflection.’ The following section considers a range
of perspectives on children’s play in outdoor environments and
examines critically the implications for practice.
Psychological perspectives
The growing and maturing child

Beginning with the philosophical writing of Jean-Jacques Rousseau
(1712–78), the garden has provided a recurring metaphor for the
nurturing of young children’s natural growth within educational
settings. Biological models similarly place emphasis on what they
conceptualize as the early and natural unfolding of development
(Raban et al. 2003). Arnold Gesell and Myrtle McGraw carried out
extensive naturalistic observations of children in the 1920s and
1930s and were the first to chart the stages of children’s physical
development, from early movement patterns to mature patterns of
behaviour. Gesell extended this approach to cognitive and social
development, again theorizing that children passed through a
sequence of biologically determined stages. Gesell’s primary empha-
sis on the biological programming of development is not widely
accepted today. However, Gesell’s work was important in establish-
ing normative guidelines for key aspects of development including
play, supporting parents of the time in anticipating their children’s
milestones. Reviewing the history of child development research,
Parke (2004) acknowledges Gesell as a pioneer in terms of both
methodology and theory.
Gesell was committed to providing advice to parents, and today a
maturational perspective is often the commonsense approach of
parents and educators, reflected in our language by such common
sayings as, ‘She’s just going through a phase.’ In terms of implic-
PERSPECTIVES ON YOUNG CHILDREN 23
ations for practice, the maturational perspective suggests a mainly

monitoring role for the adult during outdoor play, with development
left to proceed at its own pace (Raban et al. 2003).
Monitoring remains a common approach to young children’s
physical development outdoors in some settings. However, Wood-
ward and Yun (2001) argue that non-interventionist approaches may
limit children’s optimal development. In a study focused on the
gross motor skills of young children in an American Headstart
programme, they found that just over half the children had age-
appropriate skills, while a significant minority had less developed
skills. The free-play programme offered outdoor play but little or
no adult interaction around physical skills, and it appeared to be
ineffective in promoting the physical development of this group
A maturational perspective on physical development may be sat-
isfactory for some children, where 3–5-year-olds have opportunities
for physically active play and children are motivated to engage in
active play. However, for many children this approach is inadequate.
It underestimates the adult role with the youngest children in creat-
ing comfortable spaces and in encouraging new physical actions
outdoors, in particular rolling, sitting up, crawling and pulling up.
For older children, a maturational approach underplays the adult
role in nurturing children’s dispositions to engage in physically
active play outdoors through imaginative, varied and differentiated
programmes of play and activities (Gallahue and Ozmun 1998).
The pre-school child

Educators working within a readiness perspective emphasize the
early years as a period of preparation for formal schooling and they
construct the young child as a ‘pre-school’ child. Readiness perspec-
tives grew out of biological models of development but placed a new
emphasis on the role of experience in development. Informed by the
behaviourist theories of the 1950s, the readiness perspective ascribes
a more active role to the adult. This approach suggests that adults
should, first, identify deficits in children’s experience that prevent
readiness for formal learning, and second, introduce activities to
hasten readiness (Raban et al. 2003).
Direct instruction, implemented with sensitivity to children’s
interests and intentions, has an important part to play in early child-
hood settings (Siraj-Blatchford et al. 2002). McNaughton and
Williams (2009) suggest that ‘telling and instructing’ can play a part
in teaching children safety and social rules, and in promoting new
knowledge and skills. Outdoors, practitioners can use ‘telling and
instructing’ very purposefully as a commentary to engage babies in
ongoing events. For example, drawing a baby’s attention to an
outdoor mobile, a practitioner might say, ‘I’m tapping the mobile.
Listen to the jingles. Again?’ With toddlers and pre-school children,
a ‘telling and instructing’ approach is essential for some health and
safety purposes. For example, when refilling a bird feeder, a practi-
tioner with toddlers might need to explain clearly that the food is not
for children to eat. There is also a place for a ‘telling and instructing’
approach with older children, for example to teach new games such
as a new circle game, or new skills such as putting on a jacket.
There are many relevant uses for this approach outdoors as one of
a range of strategies. However, the readiness perspective, as a dom-
inant approach, has been mainly associated with the elementary
school tradition in terms of outdoor play. Here, adults provide
‘letting off steam’ breaks between longer periods of formal learning
or provide short play periods as rewards for appropriate behaviour
and learning. This model is exemplified by the Miami pre-schools
that were the focus of the Oxford Preschool Research Project (Sylva
et al. 1980). Children in these centres engaged in short but intense
periods of physical activity outdoors between longer periods of
‘school readiness’ activities. However, the children demonstrated
little of the intellectually challenging behaviour observed during
outdoor play in the less structured Oxford pre-school centres. These
findings highlight a potential difficulty with readiness perspectives.
They may dichotomize physical and cognitive learning, and leave
unrealized the opportunities for challenging learning across the
curriculum outdoors. Additionally, a number of studies indicate that
any academic gains from an early and intense diet of direct instruc-
tion are likely to be short-lived (Frost et al. 2008).
The child explorer

Piaget’s work, influential within early childhood education from the
1960s onwards, brings a very different perspective to thinking about
learning and outdoor play. Piaget provides rich descriptions of
children’s perceptual and cognitive development, and he was the
first researcher to provide a fully developed theory of stages of
cognitive development (Parke 2004). His observations of his own

children as babies challenged traditional views, leading to a new
recognition of the competencies of young children. Although uninter-
ested in applied issues himself, Piaget’s work on play was highly
influential and it led to educators claiming a central role for play in
young children’s cognitive development. Piagetian theory was partic-
ularly novel in constructing the young child as an independent
explorer, and in identifying the child, not the adult, as the person to
direct learning. Taking Piaget’s perspective, the adult role becomes
one of guide, observing and assessing in relation to stages of develop-
ment, and then planning the physical and intellectual environment
that will support children’s active construction of knowledge and
understanding (Raban et al. 2003). Piaget, like other theorists who
claim that young children create knowledge by exploring the physical
world, is termed a ‘constructivist’ (McNaughton and Williams 2009).
Piaget’s work has influenced a number of early childhood educa-
tion programmes, including an influential action-research project in
an English nursery class with children from 2 to 5 years (Athey 2007).
Athey worked as a teacher-researcher, implementing a programme
to enhance the learning of inner-city children from disadvantaged
families. The programme included an integrating focus on visits
outside the nursery, including visits to a local park, a local police
stable, and boat trips on the Thames. The adult role in this pro-
gramme involved work with families, to jointly observe and record
commonalities in children’s behaviour, identified as schema. It also
involved finely tuned interactions with children, to support their
development through different levels of cognitive functioning, from
motor action, through symbolic functioning, to thought. In this
respect, Athey gives a significant role to adults in support of young
children’s cognitive development, departing from Piaget’s original
constructivist approach.
Outdoor play experience served an important role within this
learning process, particularly at the level of motor action. For
example, Athey (2007, p. 140) notes the children’s fascination with
spaces that contain and envelop, and she describes how children first
explored this schema:
. . . project observations consisted of children either putting

objects into containers or getting inside enveloping spaces –
climbing in and out of enveloping spaces by various means, by
steps and ladders, by crawling through, by levering themselves

downwards into holes, and so on.
At this early stage of development, adults support children by main-

taining a descriptive commentary on actions. Gradually, children
take over the dialogue and begin to represent their experiences
symbolically, for example through language, by drawing and paint-
ing, or through role-play. Over time, action schemas develop into
higher-order concepts, often, as in the example below, supported by
active outdoor experience:
Before Alistair (4: 6: 19) drew the tent . . . and said that there
wasn’t enough room inside for more children, he had systemat-
ically explored the tent in order to extend the schema of envel-
opment . . . His comments reveal a dawning awareness of the
volume taken up by his own body in relation to the capacity of
the tent. (Athey 2007, p. 146).
OBSERVATION POINT
Observe a group of toddlers or young children playing
outdoors.
What repeated action patterns can you identify from the
following?
• Envelopment.
Children wrapping or covering themselves, other children
or objects
• Containment.
Children placing themselves or objects inside containing
objects or structures.
What resources could you add to support this play?
Take note of:
• Examples of adults enriching children’s action schema
through talk.
• Examples of children representing the action schema
through talk, mark-making or construction.
These and further examples (Meade and Cubey 2008) suggest ways
in which adults, informed by cognitive developmental perspectives,
can effectively support child explorers in outdoor learning environ-
ments. However, Frost et al. (2008) identify several critiques of
Piaget’s theory. Subsequent researchers have challenged Piaget’s
idea that children’s learning is fixed within a particular stage and
that children use domain-general learning mechanisms to develop
concepts across all areas of development. Researchers such as
Gelman and Brenneman (2004) have worked with pre-school teach-
ers in the United States to develop early science and maths curricula,
and argue that children approach new learning in ways that are
domain-specific. For example, a child growing up on a farm may be
precocious in understanding early scientific concepts relating to the
natural world but have an understanding of number within
expected norms. This research has implications for planning for chil-
dren’s learning during outdoor play. Gelman and Brenneman (2004)
argue that young children need repeated experience over time of
salient scientific concepts, for example the concept of living things.
REFLECTION POINT
Think of an early-years setting that you know well.
Reflect on the experiences provided for babies, toddlers or
young children in the outdoor environment over their time in
the setting.
• What living things are children interested in?
• What aspects of the environment support repeated experi-
ence of living things over a year or longer period?
• How do adults support children in gaining these experi-
ences?
• How could practitioners enhance the environment and
develop the adult role?
A nursery garden provides a valuable context for such experience as

children can revisit outdoor experiences over time and through the
different seasons. Gelman and Brenneman (2004) also recognize the
need for an adult role in scaffolding early learning in this area. Like
other researchers, they have challenged Piaget‘s focus on the child as

a solitary explorer, as will be explained below.
An active partner in learning

Although Piaget recognized the importance of the social and the
affective dimensions of learning (Siraj-Blatchford et al. 2002), this
aspect was not the key focus of his theories. His work as a construc-
tivist contrasts with social constructivist perspectives that recog-
nize the importance of young children’s interactions with their
physical worlds, but theorize learning as primarily a social process.
This emphasis on learning through social relationships can be
found in the work of a range of researchers, including Bruner,
Vygotsky, Schaffer and Bronfenbrenner. All emphasize the impor-
tant learning that takes place in families and communities before
formal school learning begins. Additionally, these theorists fore-
ground the essential role of the adult or more competent child, who
provides leadership and guidance to the child through interaction
(Raban et al. 2003). Social constructivists foreground children’s
learning, including their playful learning, as they take on roles as
social partners with adults and with more competent peers. Schaf-
fer (1996) explains that this social role is evident from birth as
infants participate in early social encounters around basic biologi-
cal processes such as feeding and sleeping. From about two months
of age, with much improved visual skills, infants become increas-
ingly aware of other people, and social interaction develops around
face-to-face encounters, including more prolonged gaze and social
smiles. Until about five months, face-to-face interactions are the
primary form of social engagement. From this point onwards,
however, engagement with the world of objects becomes a focus for
play, driven by the infant’s increasing abilities to manipulate
objects. Initially, at around six months, the child can attend to the
object or the person. From about eight or nine months, however, an
impressive range of new abilities emerges. The young child
becomes able to co-ordinate a number of activities, for example
turning attention between a carer’s smiling face and a ball being
rolled towards her on the grass. From this point, the child becomes
an equal social partner in, for example, the adult–infant games such
as Patacake and Peekaboo often played with this age group. Schaf-
fer (1996) gives the term ‘reciprocity’ to the infant’s new and signifi-
cant achievement of active participation in such games. ‘Intention-

ality’ is a further social achievement at this time, seen in the game
of ball, as the young child repeatedly gestures towards the ball,
indicating that he or she would like the game to be repeated. Adults
have an important role to play in supporting these emergent social
skills. Schaffer (1996) explains how distinctive patterns of adult–
child interaction are shaped by cultural influences, by the personal-
ities of care-givers and also by the characteristics of each child as a
unique person.
Scaffolding is a metaphor that has been used to explain how
effective adult–child or peer interaction provides support for a
child’s learning. Attentive adults scaffold children’s learning in the
examples of adult–infant games, as noted above. Scaffolding is an
approach to interaction that enables the child to perform at a level
beyond his or her independent capability but within what is termed
the ‘zone of proximal development’ (ZPD). The ZPD is the level of
functioning that young children can work within, given adult or peer
support.
In their guidelines for practitioners on the use of scaffolding,
McNaughton and Williams (2009) propose distinct phases of
involvement. First, practitioners should observe a child carefully,
taking note of his or her cognitive, communicative and social compe-
tencies. In particular, they need to be alert to when a child is ready to
move forward in learning, identifying what the next step might be.
Following this, the practitioner should spend time with the child,
individually or in a small group, interacting in ways that can support
the child’s progress. Parents and carers who have developed attach-
ment relationships (Smith et al. 2003) with their children from birth
often support learning more instinctively than practitioners who are
working with a diverse group of young children. McNaughton and
Williams (2009) suggest a range of relevant teaching techniques
for practitioners to draw on when scaffolding children’s learning,
including questioning, confirming and modelling.
As explained above, the concept of scaffolding is relevant to work
with the youngest children, and scaffolding can be used effectively
during play episodes outdoors. Rayna’s (2004) comparative study of
professional practice in French and Japanese day-care centres pro-
vides an interesting account of two culturally distinct approaches to
the education and care of children under the age of 1 year. In the
Japanese centres, educators worked in a sustained and playful way
to scaffold learning for the under-1s through adult–child interac-

tions. Their practice reflected staff training and guidelines, which
include a strong focus on how to play with young children, includ-
ing babies. Play in the open air, in a garden or terrace, is also consid-
ered to be an important aspect of good practice and linked to the
value that Japanese educators place on natural environments, social
interaction and good health. The Japanese educators interacted
intensively with the under-1s during extensive periods of play,
which included adult-initiated songs, invitations to play with care-
fully selected objects, and the encouragement of physical play. Staff
also gave time to supporting the children in participating in social
play with peers and older children. This practice appears to include
the key elements of scaffolding with babies (McNaughton and
Williams 2009). Rayna’s (2004) account suggests that the Japanese
educators were concerned to identify a shared focus of interest, to
establish joint interest in this focus, to demonstrate warmth and
responsiveness, to hold a child within the ZPD, and to encourage
each child to have control of his or her own learning.
Turning to work with pre-school children, the REPEY study of
effective pedagogy in early childhood settings (Siraj-Blatchford et al.
2002) provides some examples of scaffolding where skilled practi-
tioners facilitated episodes of ‘sustained shared thinking’ around
what were often child-initiated interests and themes. In one success-
ful outdoor activity, practitioners talked with children over an
extended period, as they closely observed and drew slugs and snails.
The practitioners modelled language, extended children’s vocabu-
lary, and shared their detailed knowledge of the animals. Where
interaction of this quality occurs regularly, settings are particularly
effective in promoting cognitive development. However, the REPEY
study (Siraj-Blatchford et al. 2002) highlights the low frequency of
such episodes in most settings.
The Japanese and REPEY examples suggest that outdoor environ-
ments can provide rich stimuli for playful talk and learning.
However, it seems there is a need for settings to review the opportu-
nities for adults to interact with children during play and to support
episodes of scaffolding, including ‘sustained shared thinking’
outdoors.
Diverse childhoods
A fifth perspective considered by Raban et al. (2003) is that of critical
theory. Critical social psychology highlights the multiplicity of views
of childhood and expectations of children that exist within society.
It questions any notion of a ‘normal approach’ to working with
children and challenges practitioners to review taken-for-granted
practices within their own culture. Rayna’s (2004, p. 46) study of
Japanese and French day-care centres demonstrates the value of
comparative analysis for ‘decentring from one’s own point of view,
for helping practitioners become aware of tensions within their
beliefs and practices’. This is particularly important for the many
practitioners who work within culturally diverse communities.
While Rayna’s study compared cultural practices across two very
different societies, Brooker’s (2005) ethnographic study of a recep-
tion class in England brings to light the complex issues for the
education of young children that relate to cultural diversity within
one community. The teaching staff in Brooker’s study held an ideal-
ized concept of the 4- and 5-year-olds in their reception class which
assumed a natural ability to ‘learn through play and exploration’
(Brooker 2005, p. 118). However, most Bangladeshi families with
children in this class had very different cultural expectations and
views about children’s learning. These significant differences in
beliefs and practices relating to children, play and learning had neg-
ative consequences for several of the children from the Bangladeshi
families as they started out on their school careers. While play provi-
sion was a key feature of the learning environment in Brooker’s
(2005) study, outdoor play opportunities as an integral part of the
planned curriculum were not described. However, Brooker’s (2005)
call for a critical review of much current practice relating to a peda-
gogy of play is pertinent to our thinking about outdoor play. Brooker
identifies a need for practitioners to examine critically their assump-
tions about play, to question the common work/play dichotomy in
early-years curricula, to review the value placed on relationships as
a key element of children’s learning, to prioritize opportunities for
peer learning, and to enter into a genuine dialogue with parents from
diverse communities.
Raban et al.’s (2003) account of critical theory similarly highlights
how a critical perspective leads to questioning of the individualistic
focus of earlier approaches in psychology. Rather than viewing
children as isolated beings, critical theory recognizes children as

members of families and other groups within evolving communities.
Brooker’s study of a reception class evidences very clearly the
complex social world of young children as they work to develop
identities within very different home and school communities.
Raban et al. (2003) suggest that practitioners should acknowledge
children’s relationships with diverse groups within the wider com-
munity, and aim to educate children in partnership with others.
In thinking through the implications of this perspective for
outdoor play, there seems to be potential in working to engage
families and the wider community in developing early-years
outdoor environments in culturally relevant ways. Some settings, for
example some children’s centres in the UK, will have opportunities
to develop outdoor areas in partnership with community groups and
make these available for wider use. Additionally, there may be
individuals and groups with a special contribution to make out-
doors, for example groups with artistic, craft or gardening skills.
Exemplifying this approach, Learning through Landscapes (2003)
describes how one London primary school, serving a culturally
diverse community, collaborated with families to develop a very
special garden. Families shared knowledge of plants from a wide
range of countries of birth, contributing to an environment that
could be enjoyed by diverse community members.
Further examples of community gardens are the two case-study
gardens in London, examined by Rishbeth (2004), which showed
contrasting approaches to representing ethnic diversity. Both
gardens were fairly small and located in densely populated areas.
Chumleigh Gardens had small areas representing African, Islamic,
Mediterranean and Oriental gardens, while Calthorpe Project used a
range of strategies to involve community members from different
ethnic groups. In general, residents from a range of ethnic back-
grounds enjoyed the gardens as quiet havens in densely populated
urban environments. However, Rishbeth’s (2004) study identified
differences among ethnic groups in response to the gardens. It also
raised complex issues as to how best ‘to empower people from all
ethnic backgrounds to take a full role in shaping the built environ-
ment’ (Rishbeth 2004, p. 331). The engagement of community
members in gardening activities led by multi-ethnic staff was a
successful aspect of the Calthorpe Project. In addition, the provision
of food was also important in engaging community members, partic-
ularly members from cultures where eating outdoors is customary.

The study has relevance for early-years settings that seek to involve
ethnically diverse communities in the development of outdoor
spaces for children and other community members to use.
Geographical perspectives
Wild places
Our sense of places that are special to us, both positive and negative,
is an essential part of who we are. This includes the remembered
places of childhood. Geographical perspectives on children and
childhood have focused on understanding children’s developing
sense of place. Several studies highlight the importance of wild
places for children (Wake 2007). For example, Nabhan (1994a, p. 7),
drawing on observations of his own children, identifies the impor-
tant emotional experience of comfort and intimacy that children can
find in nature. Describing his daughter’s excitement at her den built
under the low spread of a hackberry tree, he notes:
Over time I’ve come to realise that a few intimate places mean
more to my children, and to others, than all the glorious panora-
mas I could ever show them. Because I sense their comfort there,
their tiny hand-shaped shelter has come to epitomise true
intimacy for me.
Trimble (1994, p. 24), reflecting on his own childhood, remembers the

importance of natural objects, the collections of ‘rocks, bugs, feath-
ers, bones’ that are the treasures of early childhood. He suggests that
the experience of collecting enables children to develop a relation-
ship with the Earth, gaining a sense of security and worth.
Geographical perspectives have implications for the development
of outdoor environments and play. They remind us that children
need wild areas to support emotional well-being and nourish a
relationship with nature. In England, emotional well-being is an
important aspect of ‘Be Healthy’ outcomes within the Every Child
Matters (DfES 2004) framework, and this concept is recognized as
significant in other early-years curricula internationally. Wake (2007,
p. 31), reviewing research in this area, reports that positive childhood
REFLECTION POINT
Did you make collections as a child?
Did you make collections of natural objects?
What did you collect?
Think of some ways to encourage young children to make
natural collections outdoors.
Starting points:
• Find some natural-world objects to fit in a tiny box.
• Find autumn leaves that match the colours on a section of
a paint chart.
experience of nature has been linked to what is termed ‘environmen-

tal sensitivity’ and this may contribute to a sense of environmental
responsibility. However, there are some children, growing up in
urban environments, who now feel apathy or even fear in response
to wild places. This trend may have negative, longer-term conse-
quences for environmental citizenship. In response to such concerns,
a children’s garden movement has developed over the last two
decades in the United States. While the aims and purposes are
diverse, many gardens aim to provide urban children with opportu-
nities to learn through playful and exploratory interactions with
nature. Building on this tradition, Wake (2007) developed an evalua-
tion and design tool for children’s gardens, which she used in the
design of the Potter Children’s Garden (PCG) in Auckland, New
Zealand. This is a garden for children to visit, closely linked to the
New Zealand cultural and ecological context. However, it offers
ideas for interactive experiences to inform planning of early-years
gardens for young children to enjoy on a daily basis. PCG is
designed as a journey through different kinds of ecological environ-
ments, but with an emphasis on native trees and plants that will
attract wildlife. There are alternative pathways through the land-
scape, including stepping-stones and tunnels that allow children to
make choices and to experience the unexpected. In one case, a tunnel
is made from native tree-fern logs. There are sculptures and carvings
representing Maori myths.
Gardens that relate to the stories of our cultures and the natural
landscapes that are closest to where our early-years settings are
located can provide opportunities for young children to experience
the special qualities of natural places and things as described by
Nabhan (1994a) and Trimble (1994). However, while garden design
is important, Wake (2007) also emphasizes the importance of carer-
givers who can interact with children to engage their interest in
particular aspects of the garden and respond in a knowledgeable
way to their questions.
Sociological perspectives
Children’s peer cultures

Sociological perspectives also highlight the outdoors as a special
place for young children’s play, but emphasize the social purposes of
play. Researchers identify outdoor areas as key physical and social
spaces, within which children create their own peer cultures.
Corsaro (2005, pp. 1–2) vividly describes a scene in the outside
play area of an Italian pre-school where children enjoy their unique
creation, ‘a travelling bank’:
At some distance I saw three children marching around the yard

carrying a large, red milk carton . . . There was a bucket inside
the carton and it was filled with rocks.
‘La barca?’ I asked Antonio.
‘No, la banca con soldi! (The bank with money!)‘ he said as he
cupped his hand in a familiar Italian gesture.
I was intrigued. These kids had created a whole new dimen-
sion in banking, a bank that makes house calls!
Discussing the episode, Corsaro explains how young children

commonly draw on ideas and experiences from the adult world in
play but often recreate these in unique and surprising ways.
As well as dealing with adult themes, children’s peer cultures and
play address their particular concerns as children. Drawing on ob-
servations of children playing in American and Italian pre-schools,
Corsaro (2005) suggests that children aged from 3 to 6 are intensely
concerned with two themes. The first theme is that of social partici-
pation, for example establishing and sustaining shared play. Corsaro
uses several examples of outdoor play to detail the strategies and

rituals that young children use to enter and sustain shared play
episodes. The second concern is with challenging and gaining
control over adult authority, for example evading adult rules.
OBSERVATION POINT
Observe children’s social play outdoors.
What strategies do toddlers and/or young children use to join
groups of children who are playing?
What strategies do toddlers and/or young children use to
sustain episodes of play?
Perry’s (2001) ethnographic study of yard play in an American

nursery builds on the ideas of Corsaro. She examines the outdoor
fantasy play of 4- and 5-year-olds and argues that spontaneous and
child-directed fantasy play outdoors is significant for young chil-
dren’s social and emotional development. Children’s collaborative
learning is highlighted; children learn what it means to be a friend
and how to take on the perspectives of others through the process of
play. Although she identifies making friends as a natural process,
Perry highlights an important role for the early-years practitioner in
supporting this. She documents the teachers’ observations of the
evolving peer cultures outdoors and explains how observations
inform skilled and supportive interventions in play.
Connolly (1998) examines the social worlds of 5- and 6-year-olds,
in an English, multi-ethnic inner-city primary school. Although
focused on the hidden curriculum of school playtime, rather than an
explicit pre-school curriculum, this study has wider relevance and
challenges practitioners to look more closely at issues of gender and
racism in the lives of young children. Emphasizing young children’s
social competency, Connolly (1998, p. 2) explores ‘the complex ways
in which racism intervenes in young children’s lives and comes to
shape their gender identities’ within a peer culture. This important
study (Connolly 1998, p. 195) challenges ‘traditional notions of child-
hood innocence’ and offers support to practitioners as they develop
multicultural and anti-racist strategies.
These studies highlight the complexity of children’s peer cultures

and the importance of themes of friendship, gender and ethnicity. In
England the Every Child Matters framework (DfES 2004) recognizes
the need for adults to support ‘Making a Positive Contribution’ out-
comes, which includes positive peer relations, in proactive ways.
Taken together with the studies discussed above, this suggests a
need for practitioners to observe very closely during outdoor play
and, like Perry’s (2001) skilled practitioners, use observations sensi-
tively, to inform interventions that can promote social and emotional
development.
Playwork perspectives
Over recent decades in the UK, playwork has developed as a
distinctive approach to the play of children and young people, with
playworkers representing a relatively new and distinct professional
group. In England and Wales, the Children’s Plan is shaping recon-
figured children’s services and recognizing the important contribu-
tion of play services to children’s lives. Playwork has sometimes
been defined by the kinds of contexts in which playworkers are
employed, for example community and adventure playgrounds.
Playworkers have traditionally worked in the places where school-
age children choose to go, and not in the places that they have to go,
for example schools. However, the boundaries between spaces for
education, care and recreation are becoming blurred. In England,
playworkers can be found working with children from 4 years of
age, in the day-care provision of extended schools, and also in
private and community nurseries. The playwork role has similari-
ties with the role of pedagogues in parts of Europe, professionals
who support the notion of ‘upbringing’ (Moss and Haydon 2008).
Playwork is a wider concept than education as generally conceived,
and it includes a concern for nurturing all aspects of the child’s
development, with a particular focus on personal, social and
emotional development, and creativity. In England, a playwork
approach fits well with the holistic approach of the Every Child
Matters (DfES 2004) agenda. Playworkers value play in childhood
as a part of children’s lives but not as a vehicle to support children’s
development towards pre-defined learning goals.
Rather than thinking of playwork as a distinct profession,
however, it can be useful to consider it as a philosophical approach
to children’s play that stands in a different tradition from educa-

tional approaches. Playwork raises questions in relation to dominant
discourses of play in education and care settings for young children,
particularly in countries where practice is shaped by prescribed
learning goals.
This chapter has identified diverse theoretical perspectives on young

children’s development to inform practice around outdoor play. It
has evidenced ways in which outdoor play can enrich children’s
lives. However, there are recurring and often complex issues that
arise for practitioners who aspire to develop outdoor play as an
essential curriculum strand. Gender differences, for example in
children’s use of outdoor play space, present difficult issues, while
balancing safety and challenge in outdoor play is a further concern.
These and other issues will be considered in the next chapter.
Further Reading
Meade, A. and Cubey, P. (2008), Thinking Children: Learning
About Schemas. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University.
Perry, J. (2001), Outdoor Play: Teaching Strategies with Young

Children. New York: Teachers College Press.
4 Outdoor play decisions
. . . it is often through discussion with someone who holds a

conflicting point of view, that we are able to clarify our thinking
and reach new insights. (Edgington 1998, pp. 201–2)
Practitioners who aim to work towards quality in outdoor provision

have to make some important decisions about principles and prac-
tice. This chapter uses nine outdoor stories to introduce some key
and recurring themes for discussion and decision-making. The
outdoor play themes to be examined concern:
• the relationship between the quality of outdoor play and pro-

gramme structure;
• issues relating to the adult role in supporting young children’s
relationships during play;
• problems arising from diverse weather conditions;
• balancing the positive and negative aspects of messy play out-
doors;
• resolving gender issues relating to space and styles of play;
• planning an inclusive outdoor learning environment;
• meeting children’s need for physical challenge.
In exploring each of these areas, it is important to recognize that

team members may hold diverse views. It is also important to
acknowledge the diversity of early childhood settings; this militates
against universal solutions to problems. McNaughton (2000), consid-
ering the relevance of concepts from post-structuralism for improv-
ing early-years practice, suggests the value of standing back from
our taken-for-granted assumptions. Early-years teams work in
diverse cultural contexts, and team members may have diverse
perspectives. Consequently there are no prescriptive answers to the
issues that arise in particular settings. Each staff team will need to
39
explore the outdoor play issues independently, working towards

shared viewpoints. In many settings, it will be important to access
the perspectives of children, parents, carers and communities to
support policy development. This section introduces the nine
outdoor stories, presents research relevant to the issues raised and
explores potential responses.
Programme structure
Outdoor story
Indoors–outdoors: children’s choices
Groups at Willow pre-school had a chance to play out each day, and
today it was the turn of the Red Room first. Reena watched and
helped as her group of 3- and 4-year-olds rushed to be first with their
coats and jackets.
It was a dull autumn day but the children were soon busily
engaged outdoors. Several were keen to join the movement activity.
Lively music accompanied them as they twisted and turned, making
patterns in the air with brightly coloured streamers. Reena joined in
the dance, praising and encouraging children as they moved to the
music. She also encouraged turn-taking, so that all children could
enjoy the streamers.
Just one child, Maya, hung back. Maya stood very still, observing
other children as they played at the sand tray, built with wooden
blocks, and made chalk patterns on the ground. Her face was impas-
sive and she did not move until the half-hour had ended. Reena
announced that it was time to change groups, and Maya’s face
brightened. She moved straight to the door and was first in the
queue. She was keen to return to her home-corner play of the previ-
ous day. Amadur, however, was less enthusiastic. He had just filled
his trolley with crates and was about to start transporting crates to
the garage at the end of the path. This was not a good time to go in!
Later, at the weekly staff meeting, Reena shared her observations
of Maya and Amadur. She felt that Maya was gaining little from
outdoor sessions. She reminded the team of her visit to Maya and her
mum at home, prior to admission to nursery. Living on the sixth
floor of a tower block with her mum and a new baby, she felt that
Maya probably had little experience of outdoor play. At the same
time, Reena felt that the battle to persuade Amadur to comply with
OUTDOOR PLAY DECISIONS 41
coming-in routines was exhausting for all. Reena was also concerned
by Amadur’s low-level play indoors, where he showed nothing of
the concentration and persistence observed outside.
Reena’s more experienced colleagues disagreed with her analysis.
They argued that Maya had an entitlement to outdoor play, suggest-
ing that any reluctance to play outdoors was normal for a new child
and likely to be temporary. They were equally insistent that the pro-
gramme structure was beneficial for Amadur, helping him conform
to routines and take turns in his play.
The practitioner response: what would you do?

Some early childhood settings offer set periods of outdoor play,
lasting from half an hour to an hour each session, providing each
child with daily experience outdoors. During these periods, all
children or a specified group play outdoors. In some settings
practitioners choose this as their preferred approach, while in other
settings it is prescribed by the limitations of buildings and staffing.
Other early-years settings offer opportunities for more extended
periods of indoor and outdoor play, with children moving independ-
ently between indoor and outdoor provision. These are important
differences in programme structure.
Window on research
The Oxford Pre-school Research Project (Sylva et al. 1980)
compared the experiences of children in Oxford and Miami
pre-schools and identified significant issues relating to pro-
gramme structure. It seems that children who are free to begin
and end activities independently, as in the Oxford pre-schools,
are more likely to engage in the extended bouts of play that are
associated with cognitive complexity. Amadur’s transporting
and garage play represents play of high cognitive challenge, as
identified by the Oxford Pre-school Research Project. It is there-
fore important to consider whether a stop–start schedule that
cuts across such play places limits on children’s learning.
Laevers’ (2000) research is also relevant to the issues raised.
His ‘experiential’ approach to early education and care identi-
fies young children’s ‘emotional well-being’ and levels of
‘involvement’ as key indicators of quality. Laevers uses the term

‘experiential’ to identify a programme that focuses on the
moment-by-moment experiences of the child. He argues that
emotional well-being and involvement underpin deep-level
learning and are key concepts for practitioners working to
improve the quality of their practice. Structures that lack flexi-
bility may impede this process. For example, at this stage in her
transition into the setting, group outdoor play was probably
unhelpful for Maya. Adult support, encouraging co-operative
play with new friends in the home corner, would have met her
needs more effectively. In contrast, Amadur would have bene-
fited, in terms of well-being and involvement, from adult
support for ongoing play outdoors.
A final point concerns links between indoor and outdoor
learning. Sylva et al. (1980, p. 60) suggest that play of high
cognitive challenge includes play that is ‘cognitively complex,
involving the combination of several elements, materials,
actions or ideas’.
Where practitioners encourage children to link indoor and
outdoor themes and experiences, levels of cognitive challenge
may be increased. A practitioner, supporting the play of Maya
and her new friends in the home corner, might suggest a picnic
in the garden with the babies to encourage this more complex
play. Supported by the adult, the play could start off in the home
corner, getting baby, picnic and picnic blanket ready for the
outing, before moving outdoors onto the grass. This would
allow Maya to have a positive early experience of outdoor play
in the company of new friends, with adult support and within
the safe boundaries of a self-selected play theme. It would also
support the development of more complex role-play themes.
This is one of many possibilities for linking indoor and outdoor
play experiences.
For managers and lead practitioners dealing with staffing rotas and
concerned to meet adult–child ratios, a fixed period approach to
programme structure is attractive. A flexible approach requires
more complex arrangements, with staffing attuned to the flow of
children’s interests. However, it is important for teams to review the
extent to which fixed scheduling is supporting children’s ‘emotional

well-being’ and ‘involvement’. It is also important to review the
opportunities for children to connect actions and ideas into more
complex play sequences. These opportunities may be very limited,
particularly in small and crowded group rooms. Where teams decide
to make changes to their programme structure, it is helpful to use an
action research approach to change. This approach is described very
clearly by Anning and Edwards (2006) in an account of several early-
years action research projects. McNaughton and Hughes (2009)
provide more detailed guidance on working through the action
research process, again with a focus on early-years practice.
1- and 2-year-old quarrels: managing conflict
Outdoor story
Squabbles, squeals and making up
It was a bright and warm autumn day and all the children had
arrived at Robins Room at Sunshine Nursery, a day-care setting for
children from six months to 5 years. Lina, the senior practitioner, and
Annette had opened up the French windows to their outdoor play
space, and their group of 2-year-olds was soon outside, playing
happily. The Robins group shared a play space with the younger
children from the Ducklings Room. Maria, a practitioner in Duck-
lings, was also outside trying to settle George, a new child of just
eight months. George was crying intermittently after his mum’s
departure, and Maria was speaking softly to him and trying to draw
his attention to a sparkling mobile that glittered in the morning sun.
George calmed quickly and became absorbed in Maria’s game of
shaking the mobile.
Outdoors, the children were playing happily, when Annette, as
Harika’s key person (Elfer et al. 2003) went back indoors with Harika
to deal with a grazed knee. This was the result of Harika tumbling
on the path when climbing off her trike. Kazuo and Aiden were
digging with assorted containers and scoops in the expansive sand
tray; Tori was feeding her teddy in the play cube, watched by Li Mei,
who was crawling in through the attached tunnel; and Leroy was
watering the newly planted apple tree, as well as himself! Mean-
while, Lina was sitting on the edge of the sand tray, talking with
Kazuo and Aiden about their filling and emptying activities while
monitoring the wider area.
When Annette came back she immediately heard loud cries
coming from inside the play cube. She was at first surprised and then
cross to see that Lina was not going to investigate. Annette went
quickly over to the play cube herself and found the two girls both
pulling hard on the teddy, with the feeding cup on the ground. Lina
assumed that Li Mei had the teddy first and firmly told Tori to come
out and join the play with the boys in the sand tray. Tori came out
reluctantly and held Lina’s hand, walking over to the sand.
Later, when the children were sleeping, Annette asked Lina why
she had not left the boys who were playing happily and gone over to
sort out the quarrel. Lina explained that she was aware of what was
happening and was monitoring the play. However, she had judged
that the girls could sort out the quarrel for themselves. Her previous
experience was that the two girls usually arrived at some kind of
compromise, with conflict rarely escalating into a crisis. In addition,
she felt that she was making good progress in supporting the peer
play of Kazuo and Aiden, two boys who usually preferred play with
an adult, and she had not wanted to interrupt this scaffolding.
Window on research
Rayna’s (2004) comparative study of professional practice in
French and Japanese day care, described earlier, makes clear
that there are differences in the ways in which practitioners
from different cultures are likely to respond when babies are
crying. It is to be expected that there would be similar differ-
ences in response to the play of slightly older children. Observ-
ing French practice, Rayna (2004) notes that caregivers did not
hurry to provide comfort, although they did not leave babies
crying for any length of time. However, observing this unfamil-
iar practice, Japanese educators were impressed by the ability
of the French babies to play independently, an apparent
outcome of these more detached relationships.
Turning to slightly older children, Singer (2002) has some

pertinent conclusions about the abilities of 2- and 3-year-olds to
deal independently with conflict among peers. Singer studied
videotaped data of peer conflicts during the free play of 2- and
3-year-olds in one Finnish and nine Dutch day-care settings.
She noted that most conflicts arose during joint or parallel play
and that children showed a range of non-verbal strategies to
ensure that disagreements rarely escalated into conflicts. The
data suggest that practitioners may be no better at resolving
conflicts than children themselves. Children were more likely to
be separated when adults intervened, while, without interven-
tion, children were more likely to continue playing together.
Adults who ‘resorted to higher power strategies’ (Singer 2002,
p. 62) as in half the adult interventions, unintentionally rein-
forced the power of one of the children. Such strategies
included enforcing a solution, as in our outdoor story, blaming
the child who appeared to be in the wrong, and supporting the
apparent victim.
Singer (2002) suggests that practitioners do need to intervene
when there is evidence of bullying behaviour and children are
hurting each other to get what they want. However, in general
she suggests a need for practitioners to strengthen children’s
pro-social behaviours, in part by recognizing conflict as a
natural part of social life and ensuring that opportunities are
provided for children to resolve conflict independently. Other
proposed strategies include suggesting verbal tools for children
to use in conflict situations, such as ‘Take turns’ and ‘Don’t
hurt’; and helping children to verbalize feelings and activity
ideas. Where adults feel they need to intervene, Singer suggests
that they should try to respect the intentions of all children, and
help to mediate, ensuring that the play continues.
This research suggests that peer conflicts are an expected part of the
social world of young children playing together in group care set-
tings. However, babies and toddlers appear motivated to invest in
positive social relationships from early on. There is an important role
for adults in promoting positive peer relationships but it requires

a special kind of sensitivity to peer cultures. Observing young
children’s relationships in action may be a useful starting point for
building practitioner skills in this area.
Unpredictable weather
Outdoor story
A place in which to play whatever the weather
Gerrard was looking forward to his day outside. It was one of the
real positives of the job that at least once a week he could work with
children in Mayville Nursery School’s outdoor area. His enjoyment
of outdoor play was one of the reasons he had chosen to specialize in
early-years education at college.
The sky was blue as Gerrard and the team began setting up the
attractive and diverse outdoor environment. The focus for the
session was a mini-beast hunt. It had been planned after adults had
observed the fascination of Naima and Charlene with worms, dis-
covered in the digging patch a few days previously. Charlene had
recently started at nursery and this was the first time staff had seen
her absorbed in anything but home-corner play. Gerrard had organ-
ized resources to support the activity, with magnifiers, picture refer-
ence books and mark-making materials ready for use. However, by
the time the children had self-registered, the sky had changed. Black
clouds threatened overhead and the air felt chill. Gerrard was unsure
what to do but quickly decided that an optimistic stance was
required. He checked that jackets were buttoned and zipped, and
then gathered a group around him on the logs to see what he had in
his special box. The children, including Charlene, were enthralled as
Gerrard introduced the menagerie of plastic spiders, beetles, cater-
pillars and bees. They joined in with his mini-beast rhymes, before
enthusiastically taking up his challenge to set out on a real mini-
beast hunt. The first group was a great success. At the end of the
hunt, with raindrops beginning to fall, Gerrard encouraged several
of the group to take the mark-making materials inside, to draw what
they had found.
However, as he gathered together a second group which Naima
excitedly joined, the driving rain began. All thoughts of mini-beasts
were put to one side as Gerrard set to work to bring necessary

resources under the canopy or back into the shed. The rest of the day
was a frustrating one for Gerrard and the children. The weather was
changeable, a few more attempts at a mini-beast hunt were rained off
and, by early afternoon, the grassy area was unpleasantly muddy.
At the next staff meeting, Gerrard shared his frustration with the
team. This led to heated discussion as to the value of planning for
outdoor play when the weather was so unpredictable. One member
of staff, Sylvia, seriously questioned the value and appropriateness
of persisting with outdoor play in unreliable weather.

Where practitioners work in climates with fast-changing weather
conditions, planning for outdoor play will need to be flexible. The
weather can be frustratingly unpredictable, with many changes in a
single day, as Gerrard experienced. However, the overall pattern is
predictable. Most settings can expect there to be hot and sunny days,
wild and windy days, as well as grey and rainy days on many occa-
sions throughout the year. In addition, many settings can anticipate
at least one cold and snowy day each year, while for others this may
be a more regular occurrence. Children are often interested or excited
by the weather, as well as by other surprising outdoor events, and
children’s interests are an important starting point for learning. For
example, where a garden includes a giant, purple buddleia in flower,
sightings of butterflies are likely. The first sighting, however, will be
a surprise and it is likely to arouse much interest.
The natural world is changeable and often unpredictable. It is
these aspects of natural world events that are rich in potential for
learning of all kinds, particularly early scientific learning.
Window on research
Woolley (2008), a landscape architect, reminds us that ‘playing
out in different weathers means that children learn about the
elements such as wind and rain – or air and water’ and that
these can be linked to other kinds of learning about the natural
world. Therefore, practitioners should be well prepared to

exploit natural world events of this kind.
Understanding of scientific concepts can develop rapidly in
the pre-school and early school years, where children have rich
opportunities for first-hand experience, alongside adult talk and
scaffolding (Gelman and Brenneman 2004). Keil (in Meadows
1993), for example, discusses the case of a 5-year-old who
believed that rocks are alive. The child argued that rocks can
have babies, evidenced in pebbles; rocks can grow, perhaps
into larger rocks; and rocks can die, evidenced by their lack of
movement. Meadows (1993) concludes that it is children’s
limited experience that is the key factor leading to errors of this
kind. Building on this research, Gelman and Brenneman argue
that, if young children are to achieve understanding of concepts
such as the animate–inanimate distinction at issue in the story
above, they need extended periods of time and repeated expe-
riences, supported by adult scaffolding. Well-planned outdoor
play can offer these experiences.
Responsive teaching in outdoor environments is most likely to

happen where adults are well prepared to exploit exciting but un-
predictable events. Ouvry (2000) and Edgington (2002) present ideas
for planning that build on children’s natural enthusiasm for windy
and rainy weather, as well as other events in the natural world. For
example, practitioners can collect together sets of resources in boxes
of varying sizes to be brought out in response to particular events,
and particularly natural world events. The case study for short-term
planning below includes suggestions for the kinds of resources that
can be kept in readiness for a rainy day. Working in this way, Gerrard
and his team might find that unpredictable weather became less of a
problem, while offering new opportunities for enjoyable and stimu-
lating learning.
All kinds of weather
Outdoor story
A blue-sky day
The staff at Swinburn College Nursery had recently moved into a
new, purpose-built nursery, with a much enlarged outdoor area, and
the new college term was about to begin. Nasreen, the Nursery
Manager, was optimistic that, after years of struggle to provide
outdoor play in a tiny, featureless yard, the new area would make
outdoor play trouble-free. At the first staff meeting of the year,
Nasreen explained that money left over from the new-build budget
would be made available to each of the four group rooms to support
further development of provision. However, she felt it would be
wise to delay spending, to wait and see what outdoor play needs
appeared over the first term. The team also discussed plans to
increase outdoor play opportunities for all groups, including the two
youngest groups in Tigers Unit, who shared a spacious outdoor area
to the side of the nursery. They agreed, where possible, to encourage
free movement for children between indoor and outdoor areas.
The new term began with clear, blue skies and two weeks of unex-
pectedly hot, sunny weather. Nasreen spent little time in the office
over this period, instead spending time in each group room, assess-
ing how new children were settling in and how the new building
was working. There were some annoying problems with the new
building, for example an intercom system that didn’t work and high
windows that no one could open. However, Nasreen was delighted
at how well the indoor–outdoor flow of play was working in the two
rooms for older children. In addition, children who were moving to
new rooms and children starting at nursery for the first time had all
settled more quickly than usual. However, whenever Nasreen went
into Tigers Unit, she was disappointed to see all the youngest
children indoors, and often several children crying.
Nasreen waited until her regular meeting with Abdul, the Unit
Leader, to ask about the plans for extended outdoor play. Abdul
explained that staff had agreed to keep the Tigers children inside
because of the hot weather. The new area was far more exposed to
the sun than the previous yard, where children could play in the
shade cast by an established oak tree in the garden next door. Plant-
ings in the new garden were all low-level and low-maintenance
plants, and there were no taller plants to provide shade. In addition,

several of the babies were very fair skinned and likely to get burnt.
Staff had noticed children becoming tired and fractious during the
first attempts to offer outdoor play in the new garden. Nasreen
reminded Abdul about the nursery policy on outdoor play, but he
remained unconvinced that this was appropriate in such hot
weather.
Window on research
Sun protection is an important issue for early-years settings.
Boldermann et al. (2006) explain that 80 per cent to 90 per cent
of skin cancers in Western societies are caused by exposure to
ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun, particularly by exposure
in childhood. Furthermore, babies need particular considera-
tion because a baby’s skin is five times thinner than adult skin.
Therefore, Great Ormond Street Hospital (2009) recommends
that under-1s stay out of strong sunlight and, on hot, sunny
days, be kept in the shade. Other children who require particu-
lar protection from the sun are children with fair hair or skin,
and children with a lot of moles or freckles.
Many early-years settings have outdoor areas that offer little
protection from the sun. For example, Susan Herrington’s
(2008) study of the successful and unsuccessful features of
outdoor play spaces at Canadian childcare centres identifies
exposure to the sun as a negative feature of several settings. This
includes settings with rooftop play spaces. She notes the
increasing numbers of rooftop play spaces in Vancouver nurs-
eries, a consequence of the high cost of land and the city’s plans
for densification. Such play spaces are particularly prone to the
problems of heat and wind exposure.
A Swedish study (Boldermann et al. 2006) provides evidence
of an important relationship between the qualities of outdoor
environments and children’s health during outdoor play in
sunny weather. Boldermann et al. (2006) studied the play of
4- to 6-year-olds in the outdoor spaces of eight Swedish pre-

schools. In three of these centres, children spent most of their
time outdoors, including mealtimes. Outdoor environments
were evaluated in a number of ways, including the size of play
areas and the density of trees and shrubbery, particularly near
play structures and play areas. The conclusion of the study was
that spacious outdoor areas with trees and shrubbery provided
protection from UV radiation and triggered higher levels of
physical activity. However, in two pre-schools with sun-
exposed environments, practitioners regularly kept children
indoors on sunny days, leading to lower levels of physical
activity.
Therefore, to promote ‘Be healthy’ outcomes (DfES 2004) for

young children, practitioners and managers should review the use of
trees and taller shrubs in their play space. This is a potential starting
point for development work at Swinburn College Nursery.
Trees and plants can be used in a range of ways to increase areas
of shade, while enhancing opportunities for different kinds of play
and sensory experience. Wood and Yearley (2007) suggest ways to
create secret hiding places with natural plantings, for example
willow tunnels and weeping or overhanging trees such as weeping
ash or silver birch. Pergolas and arches, covered in hardy climbing
plants such as honeysuckle, can provide further attractive areas of
dappled shade. Wooden shelters or playhouses, bought from equip-
ment manufacturers or made by local builders, also offer shade as
well as special places for imaginative play.
Moving to dens, a willow tepee, with woven walls made from a
range of natural and manufactured material, makes an enticing and
long-lasting den. Most nurseries will need professional support to
build structures of this kind, although children can still be actively
involved in their construction.
For more improvised and less permanent dens, outdoor den-
building offers rich opportunities for playful learning, as well as
providing welcome shade. For example, den-building can support
the development of early knowledge, understanding and skills in
both technology and science, while imaginative play is supported by
Illustration 4.1: A den in the woods
the private spaces offered by dens. Large cardboard boxes, which

children can embellish in various ways, offer the simplest kinds of
dens, while children and adults working together can build struc-
tures that are more complex. These can be made from a variety of
materials, including hollow blocks, crates, large logs and old-
fashioned clothes horses. Fabrics of different kinds can be draped
over structures to create varied effects, from light, dappled shade to
near darkness. Open fencing can be used as a part of the structure
and fabrics fixed with a variety of fasteners, including large clothes-
pegs and bulldog clips. For ready-made dens, tents of various sizes,
particularly pop-up tents for ease of use, can offer shady places for
particular activities. A nursery garden for under-2s might include a
quiet storybook tent, a treasure basket tent and a role-play tea-party
tent. Play tunnels and cubes, separate and joined together, offer
further shady spaces, inviting more active play on sunny days. Jan
White (2008) offers detailed suggestions for materials to use and the
potential for learning and development of den-building and other
kinds of construction play outdoors.
Further sources of shade are large parasols, both stand-alone or
fixed to picnic tables, and children’s umbrellas that offer shade on
Illustration 4.2: Painting a box

the move. Finally, when funding allows for more significant expen-
diture, a canopy structure fixed to the building offers protection from
both sun and rain and an outdoor space for play in all weathers.
As well as providing varied opportunities for play in shady places,
it is important to consider other approaches to sun protection. Great
Ormond Street Hospital (2009) in England advises that children need
to use sun block or sun lotion with a high sun protection factor (SPF),
with a recommended level of between 30 and 60. In addition, ‘broad
spectrum’ lotions are recommended, providing protection against
UVA and also UVB light. Sun hats are important in sunny weather,
and sun hats with wide brims or back flaps provide the most effec-
tive means of protecting children’s necks and faces.
In all these activities, it is important to engage children and
parents in learning about the need for protection from the sun. Older
children who understand that the sun can burn their skin are more
likely to take responsibility for putting on protective lotions and
bringing sun hats to nursery. By acknowledging the dangers of the
sun and planning for safe play outdoors, we can provide a more
stimulating and attractive play environment, an environment that is
inviting to children and adults in all sorts of weather.
Messy play
Outdoor story
Mixing the chocolate cake
It was a sunny spring afternoon and most of the children in the
Brookfield Early Years Unit had chosen to play outdoors. Under the
trees, a small group of girls had started to fill the shallow hollow of
a tree stump, carrying soil by the handful from a nearby tractor tyre.
With mounting excitement they collected twigs and sticks, added
handfuls of mown grass and began to stir. Soon it was clear that this
wasn’t just a strange mixture on the improvised cooker, but a
delicious ‘chocolate cake’.
A younger boy, helping to fill the nearby water tray, came over
with his bucket to see what was happening. He began to pour water
slowly into the mixture, watching intently as it trickled onto the soil.
The girls continued to poke and stir at the gooey and splattering
chocolate cake but soon they were rushing off for fresh supplies. This
time it was for ‘sugar’ from the dry sand tray on the other side of the
playground.
At this point Kerry called to Miss Cohen to came and admire their
cake. Miss Cohen was initially horrified to see the mud splattered on
Kerry’s white tee-shirt. Her mother would be furious. She was also
aware that the cake was on the point of flowing out of the pan, onto
the clothes of several other smartly dressed children. However, Miss
Cohen also sensed the special qualities of the children‘s play and she
was reluctant to cut across their intense pretend world.

Child-directed play such as this rarely appears on adults’ planning
grids and can pose a range of problems. However, play of this kind
may have a special quality of intensity not found in more adult-
directed or conceived play contexts. The special quality of play in
this case arises first from the child-led social context, with children
working with shared engagement and a high level of co-operation.
Window on research
De Hann and Singer (2001) highlight the significance of child-
led play contexts for children’s learning about togetherness and
friendship. Corsaro (2005) provides further insights into the
distinctive features of young children’s peer cultures and the
importance of the theme of friendship within these.
The intensity of experience in this case also arises from children’s

engagement with an outdoor place, incorporating a diversity of
natural, open-ended materials. Children, in this garden, play with
soil, twigs, grass, leaves, stones and sand, incorporating these into a
variety of play themes. Jan White (2008) offers a wide range of ideas
for extending such creative play, taking account of the special value
that young children place on diverse, natural places. She provides
detailed suggestions for play on a variety of scales, using the follow-
ing materials: sand and soil, wood in different forms, stones of
various sizes, a range of plants and parts of plants, a variety of seeds,
as well as shells, feathers and minerals.
Exploratory and imaginative play in such diverse environments

contributes positively to young children’s development. However,
there is a need for practitioners to plan for the manageability of such
play. Practitioners who value this play need to establish appropriate
dress codes for children and adults. Informal, easy-to-clean clothing
and readily available aprons all contribute to the manageability of
messy play. In many cases practitioners will need to share views
about the importance of such play with parents, carers, and, in some
cases, school managers. In addition, children can be involved in
discussing the issues that arise, perhaps outside the immediate play
context. Children and adults together can develop rules to ensure the
manageability of outdoor play. Children also need support to learn
necessary practical and self-help skills, such as collecting and
putting on aprons.
Gender
Outdoor story
Girls and boys come out to play
It had been warm and sunny for two days, providing the first chance
for the 4- and 5-year-olds at Newlands Primary to play on the grass
after weeks of rain. The grassy area by the apple tree had been set up
with a climbing frame, as well as tyres, crates, ropes and planks for
building. A group of the older boys raced into the garden as soon as
the doors were pulled back, rushing past the home corner towards
the building area. A saucepan toppled from the cooker as they
passed by and crashed to the ground. A small group of girls, who
had settled to play at house under the veranda, called after them
with indignant voices, ‘You’ve spilt our dinner! We’re telling Mrs
Khan now, we’re telling her!’ There was no reply.
The boys rushed headlong into the construction area, cheerfully
unaware of the upset caused. Soon they were engrossed in play,
collecting and transporting crates for their quickly growing police
station.
Mrs Khan had observed the incident and heard the upset voices.
Seeing Ellie rushing over to tell the tale, she was inclined to suggest
that the girls continue with their play and ignore this as just a minor
incident. However, she was also aware that incidents of this kind
were a daily occurrence during outdoor play. She was unsure what
to do.

It is important for practitioners to discuss the complex and some-
times puzzling gender issues that occur regularly during outdoor
play in early childhood settings. Research from a range of theoretical
perspectives can inform reflective practice.
Window on research
Smith et al. (2003) outline psychological perspectives on gender
that identify and theorize, first, early sex differences in behav-
iour and, second, developments in young children’s own
knowledge and understanding in this area. While boys and girls
share many early interests, there is evidence of clear play pref-
erences by the age of 3 and 4, preferences of the kind observed
by Mrs Khan. Girls tend to choose home-corner play, dressing-
up and play with dolls. In contrast, boys are likely to enjoy play
that is more active, for example block play, play with balls,
wheeled toys, and rough-and-tumble play. By 5 years, boys
engage in more play-fighting than girls, and they are more likely
to behave aggressively. Smith et al. (2003) review cross-cultural
studies which suggest that such differences in behaviour are
relatively stable across cultures. However, there is some evi-
dence of differences that relate to different societal expectations
of girls and boys.
Alongside differences in play choices, young children also
demonstrate a growing awareness of gender identity. Children
are likely to show some understanding of stereotypically male
and female play choices from 21/2 years. By 4 years, most chil-
dren can identify their own gender and that of others, as well as
recognize gender as a stable aspect of identity.
As Mrs Khan’s experience suggests, gender is a salient feature
of young children’s identity and of their social worlds. To
address the issues raised in practice, it seems important to seek
explanations for these gendered behaviours. Some researchers

emphasize ‘nature’ or the biological factors that may pre-
programme behaviours from early childhood onwards (Smith et
al. 2003). In contrast, social learning theorists emphasize the
role of ‘nurture’, in particular adult reinforcement of what is
seen to be gender-appropriate behaviour.
Cognitive–developmental theorists ascribe a more active role
to children in the socialization process and explain the process
of learning to be a girl or a boy as rooted in children’s cognitive
development. They argue that gender schemas, developing
from early childhood onwards, serve to focus children’s obser-
vations of peers, guiding their imitations of gendered behav-
iours.
However, a single explanation of gendered differences in
behaviour may be too simple. Maccoby’s (in Smith et al. 2003)
most recent research suggests that the development of early
gendered behaviours is shaped by an interaction of biological,
social learning and cognitive–developmental factors.
Cross-cultural studies evidence children’s increasing prefer-
ence for play and socialization with same-sex peers as they
move through childhood (Smith et al. 2003). Maccoby (in Smith
et al. 2003) highlights differences in the behaviours of these
peer groups, with competition and risk-taking characteristic of
male groups, and collaboration characteristic of female groups.
She argues that children’s involvement in same-sex peer groups
contributes positively to the development of sexual identity.
The implications of this research for practitioners are complex. At

Newlands Nursery, it may be important for children’s development
of sexual identities that practitioners support children’s preferences
for extended periods of play in same-sex groups. However, there
may be problems in accepting uncritically the ‘naturalness’ of same-
sex groups and gendered behaviours. Social learning theory high-
lights a role for adults in shaping gendered behaviours and this
raises questions about the values of the wider society in relation to
gender and equal opportunities.
Window on research
McNaughton (2000, p. 1), working within the framework of
feminist post-structuralist theory, critically reviews what she
describes as ‘nine common myths about gender equity in early
childhood’, including some of the perspectives outlined above.
She draws on research in Australian early childhood settings to
highlight the potentially problematic features of same-sex peer
groups and gendered behaviours. For example, she argues that
during free play, boys regularly use physical power to control
spaces, including girls’ spaces. Although this seems to be part of
learning what it means to be a boy, this kind of behaviour can
have negative consequences for girls. The danger is that chil-
dren and sometimes adults come to see outside spaces as boys’
territory, while seeing particular resources, such as wheeled
toys, as boys’ toys. McNaughton (2000) suggests that practition-
ers should acknowledge gender as a category to support their
observations of play. This is likely to lead to significant changes
to the curriculum and to teaching styles, and she proposes a
range of teaching strategies with relevance for the adult role
during outdoor play. For example, practitioners should take a
more interventionist approach during free play, establishing
rules to support gender rights and challenging sexism during
play. Taking account of children’s agency, she also proposes
that adults talk with children about gendered relationships
during play and seek their understanding of specific incidents.
In responding to the incident above, it would be important for Mrs

Khan to reassure the girls that their concerns were recognized. It
would be helpful to discuss the issues with the children involved,
encouraging recognition of the need for boys and girls to respect the
play spaces of others. However, rather than interrupting the flow of
play, it might be more appropriate to plan for a reflective discussion
away from the incident, perhaps during a small group or circle time.
Window on research
In a large-scale study of early childhood settings, Siraj-Blatch-
ford et al. (2002, p. 12) found that effective settings developed
strategies that ‘supported children in being assertive, at the
same time as rationalising and talking through their conflicts’.
McNaughton and Williams (2009) suggest that, where practi-
tioners introduce imaginative and human dimensions into play
areas dominated by boys and where they model play, girls are
likely to become enthusiastic players.
In responding to the incident above, Mrs Khan would need to

respect children’s preferences for play in same-sex peer groups for
some of their time outdoors. However, she could consider develop-
ing outdoor play themes with appeal to both groups, introducing, for
example, a canteen in the police station. Information books could be
used to promote further discussion about workplace roles, and a
widening of the roles children are confident to explore through play.
Mrs Khan’s active involvement in the play, perhaps in role as a police
officer, could further encourage participation by the girls.
Finally, McNaughton and Williams (2009) advise that the process
of changing gendered patterns of play is a complex one. Therefore,
any strategies used will need to be monitored carefully for both
intended and unintended consequences.
Inclusion
Outdoor story
A place in which to play – a place in which to grow strong
Jonathan works at Montague House, an integrated children’s centre
for children from 2 to 5 years, that has a high proportion of children
considered to be ‘at risk’ of SEN in terms of delayed cognitive devel-
opment and difficulties with social and emotional development. The
centre includes a small number of children with statements relating
to specific disabilities, including speech and language disorders and
physical disabilities. Jonathan is a senior teacher in the centre, with

special responsibility for disabled children and children with SEN.
He has recently taken on an additional responsibility for outdoor
play, and the staff team has identified this as an area for develop-
ment.
The centre has three connected playrooms, opening onto a
spacious paved patio. There is a large, grassy area, pathways for
wheeled toys, a chequerboard garden and plentiful resources.
However, to date the centre has focused little attention on the needs
of children ‘at risk’ of SEN or disabled children during outdoor play.
Jonathan sees this as the starting point for development.

Jonathan has made a positive decision to focus on outdoor play to
support children with disabilities and ‘at risk’ of SEN.
Window on research
A Learning through Landscapes study of children and school
grounds (Stoneham 1996) presents clear findings of the value of
school grounds for children with SEN. It highlights the impor-
tance of outdoor environments for the development of physical
skills, for building confidence, and for promoting social and
behavioural skills. A more recent study (Sammons et al. 2003),
focusing on children from 3 to 6, highlights the importance of
high-quality provision in improving the cognitive and social
behavioural development of vulnerable children. Provision in
this study was assessed using ECERS-R (Harms et al. 1998), a
rating scale that includes ratings of outdoor areas, as well as
levels of adult supervision and interaction outdoors.
To develop outdoor play in this centre, Jonathan and his team should
undertake a review of three key and interconnected areas. They
should consider adaptations and enhancements of the environment;
the selection and arrangement of resources; and the quality of inter-
actions during outdoor play, including adult–child and child–child
interactions.
Doctoroff (2001), discussing indoor environments, provides useful

suggestions for adaptations that can maximize the participation of
disabled children in play. Jonathan’s team will find it helpful to
arrange defined play areas with visible barriers, and to include some
quiet zones, particularly for children who are over-stimulated by
noisy play or who dislike noise. In addition, pathways on paved
areas could be marked and pathways on grass widened to ensure
accessibility for wheelchairs and walkers.
In selecting play materials, it is important to include resources
matched to a diverse range of abilities across areas. For example, to
promote motor skills it may be necessary to include three-wheeled
scooters and pedal-less bikes among wheeled toys, while tactile and
oval balls can be provided alongside traditional balls. Turning to role
play, Doctoroff (2001) explains that children with cognitive delay are
more likely to engage in pretend play if props, for example food and
kitchen equipment, are highly realistic. However, non-realistic,
open-ended materials can provide challenge and stimulate creative
and imaginative play for children who are more advanced cogni-
tively. Where children have significant motor impairments, materials
will need to be adapted and assistive technology used. A source of
more detailed information is provided in the final chapter of this
book.
The Montague House team should also consider involving chil-
dren in the development of wildlife areas. Trees, shrubs, flowers and
bird feeding stations can be used to attract wildlife to the grounds.
There is some evidence that such activities are particularly helpful
for children with behavioural difficulties (Stoneham 1997). The team
could also develop sensory features within the garden, involving
colour, light, texture, smell and sound (Bishop 2001). Useful develop-
ments include a herb garden, an overgrown grassy area, mobiles,
wind-chimes and the use of decorative tile or mirrored materials.
Sensory experiences can contribute to cognitive and emotional
development for a range of children (Stoneham 1997).
Doctoroff (2001) suggests that clear organization of resources is
also important for children who have conditions such as Attention
Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), where there may be diffi-
culties in focusing and sustaining attention, as well as difficulties in
regulating emotional responses. The Montague House team will
need to ensure good organization and labelling of outdoor storage,
for example using crates and shelving on wheels. Clear organization
can help children to make play choices and to contribute to the

maintenance of the environment. The placement of resources at
appropriate levels is also important for children in wheelchairs.
Where disabled children have visual disabilities, it is essential to
place resources consistently, and to provide warnings and additional
help where adults have made necessary changes to the environment.
The quality of interactions during outdoor play is the third key
area for review, including both adult–child and peer interactions.
Window on research
The Early Years Transition and Special Educational Needs
Project (Sammons et al. 2003) demonstrates a significant link
between the quality of adult–child interaction and the progress
of ‘at risk’ young children, in terms of cognitive and behavioural
development.
The Montague House team could consider formalized evaluation

and action planning to promote improvements in this area. Pascal
and Bertram (1997), for example, evidence the impact of the Effective
Early Learning Project as an approach to evaluation and action
planning on levels of adult–child interaction in nursery settings,
including interaction during outdoor play.
Peer interaction is a further area for review.
Window on research
Some studies (Hestenes and Carroll 2000) evidence relatively
high levels of solitary play among disabled children and rela-
tively low levels of play with typically developing peers.
Some disabled children, for example children with autism, can
have difficulties or delays in the area of social development
(Doctoroff 2001).
In addition, children without disabilities may be wary of children

who appear to be different in some way. Therefore, to promote
positive social experiences for disabled children during outdoor play,
adults need to be proactive. To foster positive peer relationships,
Jonathan’s team could begin by undertaking an audit of outdoor
resources to promote social play. Balls, rocking toys, wagons, trolleys
and tandem trikes are all useful resources, and outdoor role play, for
example a garage or shop, offers further opportunities for social play.
In addition, McNaughton and Williams (2009) suggest that adults
should consider supporting peer play, for example through the use of
social reinforcement techniques such as a hug for a child who engages
with a disabled child in an appropriate way.
There is a range of strategies for enhancing outdoor play for dis-
abled children and their peers to be considered by Jonathan and the
Montague House team. The three key areas for review are adapta-
tions and enhancements of the environment, the selection and
arrangement of resources, and the quality of interactions.
Listening to children
Outdoor story
Baby Bears’ voices – what do they say?
Jamila was a key person for five children who were under 2 in
Snowdrops, the group room for the youngest children at The Three
Bears Kindergarten. She had worked in early-years services for
many years, brought up her own family, and now, at a relatively
late stage in her career, she was working towards a degree. Jamila
had always been a quiet but effective member of the team in the
different nurseries where she had worked, but now, with the self-
confidence that had grown with her studies, she was becoming
more assertive about her own values as a practitioner. Although
Jamila was very happy at The Three Bears, she was becoming
increasingly impatient about what she perceived to be inequities in
staff approaches to the different age groups. There seemed to be an
implicit assumption, held by several staff, that working with the
older children was a more challenging role, requiring more highly
qualified practitioners. At times, there were also disparities in the
resources given to different groups. For Jamila, matters had come to
a head over recent plans to develop the outdoor area, using a

‘listening to children’ approach.
Macy, the Deputy Manager, had recently attended a course on ‘lis-
tening to children’ and had come back to nursery with enthusiasm
for how this approach could be used to gain children’s perspectives
on outdoor play. She felt that children’s views, together with staff
and parents’ views, should be used together to inform the develop-
ments that were being planned. Macy had led a staff meeting where
the team discussed how this approach could be put into practice
over the coming six months. However, both Macy and Anja, the Baby
Bears Room Leader, felt that the proposed approaches were inappro-
priate for the under-2s. Most children in the room were under 18
months and few children were talking in more than one- or two-
word sentences. Jamilia felt intuitively that the senior staff members
were wrong, but, in learning about ‘listening to children’ approaches
at college, she had not read about any work with babies. However,
she was confident that she could communicate with her key children
well enough to understand their preferences. The difficulty was that
she was not sure how to present her arguments at the second
meeting to take place in a fortnight’s time.

There has been much written about children’s participation over the
last two decades, with evidence of an increasingly ‘dominant dis-
course of voice and participation’ (Clark et al. 2005, p. 2). Clark et al.
(2005) argue that this participation discourse can be seen in a number
of ways. There is a growing children’s rights movement, exemplified
by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, new
approaches in sociology that increasingly recognize children as
active participants forming a distinct social group, and economic
changes that lead to children being acknowledged as consumers and
customers. However, much work in this field has focused on chil-
dren and young people. While there has been a growth in projects
that seek to identify young children’s perspectives on their pre-
school experience to inform developments of practice (Clark and
Moss 2001; Clark 2007), work focused on the under-2s is more
limited. It seems likely that the reason for this relates to the chal-
lenges of understanding the perspectives of pre-verbal children.
There are, however, some positive examples of listening to the
youngest children and some relevant guidance.
A set of six National Children’s Bureau leaflets (National Chil-

dren’s Bureau 2008) provides guidance on approaches to listening.
The leaflets summarize research, practice and methods that support
this focus on children’s perspectives. The set includes a leaflet on
listening to babies (Rich 2008), which provides a definition of
‘listening’, with four components. The first component makes it clear
that the process of listening is by no means dependent on spoken
language, and it acknowledges diverse forms of communication. It is
‘an active process of receiving, interpreting and responding to com-
munication. It includes all senses and emotions and is not limited to
the spoken word’ (Rich 2008, p. 1). The leaflet defines ‘young babies’
as up to eight months, and ‘babies’ as from eight to eighteen months.
Babies within this age range use crying for a variety of purposes,
including communicating how they feel, and they use a variety of
other sounds and body movements in communicative ways. Young
babies also use gaze when interested in an object or event and they
turn away when bored, giving further clues as to their interests. Rich
(2008) suggests that adults who are committed to communicating
with babies and who know them well, will understand how pre-
verbal children feel and recognize their preferences.
Lancaster (2006), drawing on the experience of the Coram Family’s
Listening to Young Children Project, provides an example of how a
video camera at a baby massage class was used to support an anxious
first-time mother to tune in to her six-month-old baby boy. By playing
the footage at slightly slower than normal speed, the mother became
aware of the intensity of the child’s feelings towards her during inter-
action. Lancaster (2006, p. 69) suggests that video can be particularly
helpful in listening to ‘babies, toddlers, children with disabilities, and
children who do not have English as their first language’.
Jamila was confident in her abilities to listen to the children she
knew well as their key person. Thinking about her children out-
doors, Jamila knew that when Jack stopped crying and gazed
intensely at the shiny, twirling spinner for several minutes, he was
showing his special interest in such events. Similarly, Aloise, lying on
the blanket under the shade of the trees, kicking her bare legs and
gurgling, was showing pleasure in the opportunity for vigorous
movement and perhaps the sensory experience of outdoor smells
and dappled shade. As a further example, Jamila could remember
the day when there was minimum staffing, and Nikhil, a usually
content six-month-old baby, cried intermittently while sat with a
basket of natural objects, showing little interest. She was sure that he
was communicating a need for more personalized interaction and
she knew that, without it, he would not enjoy the outdoor play.
Listening to babies is therefore to a large extent about tuning in to
children’s feelings in relation to their everyday experiences. The
NCB leaflet (Rich 2008) also suggests that listening can be about a
specific consultation. With babies, however, a consultation in relation
to outdoor play would need to draw upon adult observations of chil-
dren’s outdoor experiences to inform any developments of practice.
Practitioners could share their own observations of babies’ responses
to outdoor experiences with parents and carers, and ask for feedback
on the baby’s likes and dislikes when at home with family members.
Turning to an example of practice, Driscoll and Rudge (2005), as
the Head of Centre and teacher at Fortune Park Children’s Centre,
describe the way they use ‘profile books’ as an approach to listening
to children, including under-2s, involving both children and families.
They explain how the books become a co-constructed representation
of the child’s ‘life, interests, learning and development’ (Driscoll and
Rudge 2005, p. 91). In addition, they describe how special the books
become for children, for example as a transitional object between
home and centre. The books represent children’s experiences in a
variety of ways, for example through photographs, drawings and
records of children’s use of language, accurately recorded. Children
learn that their voice is valued through the sharing of ‘profile books’
between children and between children and adults.
These approaches may be relevant to the work with under-2s at
The Three Bears Kindergarten. By documenting the outdoor experi-
ences of children under 2 and using ‘profile books’ to support shared
reflection on experience, whether verbal or non-verbal, adults can
begin to gain an understanding of young children’s views. Our
knowledge of what experiences children enjoy and find interesting,
both at home and in the setting, can inform our developments of
practice. For example, observation of Jack and the spinner suggests
that an appropriate development for the Baby Bears garden would
be to build a pergola over part of the patio, providing opportunities
for a range of coloured and shiny spinners and mobiles. New trees
would provide further opportunities for hanging mobiles of differ-
ent sizes, attracting Jack’s attention to a range of sounds. There are
strong arguments for paying attention to babies’ voices to inform
effective developments of provision outdoors.
Health and safety
Outdoor story
Scarey, darey outdoor play
James was recently appointed as the team leader for the 3–5-year-old
group in the High Trees Early Years Centre. In his previous setting
there had been clear and detailed health and safety guidelines for
outdoor play, and all staff followed these. In this new centre,
however, James was becoming increasingly concerned about the
inconsistency of staff practice and the divergence of views in relation
to health and safety.
A particular issue for the centre was the play of 3- and 4-year-olds
on the tall slide. While most staff reinforced the agreed rule of ‘up the
steps and down the slide’, Carole, a new member of staff, was allow-
ing children to climb up the slide, slide down head first and even
hang from the edge of the slide. When asked to reinforce centre rules
by a senior member of staff, Carole had defended her approach. She
argued that the outdoor play area was lacking in opportunities for
physical challenge, particularly for older children. She also argued
that the children were well aware of their own abilities and unlikely
to take risks. James understood and accepted some of these argu-
ments. Nevertheless, he was clear that his own responsibility for
health and safety in the centre was paramount. The situation was
complex and he was unsure as to how to proceed.

Quality assurance schemes for early-years settings present a consen-
sus on the need to promote health and safety during outdoor play.
The Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale – Revised (Harms
et al. 1998, p. 22), a tool used internationally for research and pro-
gramme improvement, identifies ‘adequate supervision to protect
children’s safety’ as providing a minimal level of quality outdoors.
At the ‘excellent’ level, ‘play areas are arranged to avoid safety prob-
lems’ and ‘children generally follow safety rules’. Guidance of this
kind is important in reminding practitioners of their significant
responsibility for children’s health and safety. It is important,
however, to acknowledge that such criteria may be deceptively
straightforward. While we may all agree on the need to arrange play
areas ‘to avoid safety problems’ (Harms et al. 1998, p. 22), there may
be less agreement concerning what counts as a problem.
Senda (1992), Japanese architect and designer of children’s play
environments, argues that contemporary societies have become over-
protective of children in their concern for safety. As a consequence,
increasingly children are deprived of physically challenging experi-
ences, kept ‘enclosed in a cage called safety’ (Senda 1992, p. 5). Senda’s
innovative play environments, including outdoor play structures for
young children, are designed to provide opportunities for real physical
challenge. Drawing on extensive observations of children’s play, he
argues that well-designed structures allow even young children to
experience small dangers and learn how to deal with these.
Window on research
Senda (1992) identifies a common sequence of behaviours in
children’s use of play structures. At a first stage of functional
play, children use the equipment as intended, for example
climbing up the steps and sitting to slide down. After some
experience, children move on to a stage of technical play. Now
enjoyment comes from exploring new ways of using the struc-
ture and from mastering new physical skills. It seems that the
children in James’ centre are seeking novel and challenging
experiences in just this way. Finally, at a third stage of social
play, children begin to use play structures as settings for group
play, for example games of tag or pretend play.
Stephenson’s (2003) research in early-years settings in New
Zealand also highlights the importance for young children of
physically challenging experiences: experiences that 4-year-
olds in this study excitedly identify as ‘scarey’. She argues for a
need to balance the positive features of risk-taking for young
children with narrower discourses of risk in the wider society. It
seems that most children will seek novel and physically chal-
lenging experiences on play structures, and this inevitably
poses some risks. Therefore, practitioners need to acknowledge
this as an issue and discuss their response as a team.
As one response, the provision of a safety surface under play struc-

tures is becoming increasingly common in early-years settings, as in
public playgrounds. The aim is to increase opportunities for physical
challenge, while providing protection from injuries. Norton et al.
(2004) suggest that this is a complex area, and there is some debate
about the effectiveness of different surfaces. They concluded that
safety surfacing does seem to prevent overall injuries to children.
However, fractures of the arm still occur when children fall from a
height onto existing safety surfaces. This suggests that safety sur-
faces can provide only a partial response to the issue of risk. Good
levels of staffing are also important to provide appropriate levels of
supervision for more challenging play.
Because permanent play structures can become unchallenging
after repeated use, some practitioners reject them. It is also undesir-
able to have a large structure that dominates the outdoor area, limit-
ing other play options. Stephenson (2003), working with nursery
children, highlights the value of movable equipment, for example
tyres, crates, blocks, steps and planks. Provision of this kind allows
children to participate in physically challenging experiences as they
move equipment and design new structures. The environments
created will be more diverse and offer greater novelty than most
fixed structures. A-frames and ladders can be included to add
variety and challenge.
Window on research
As a landscape architect, Herrington (2006) argues that
challenge, including opportunities for physical challenge,
represents one of the ‘Seven Cs’, the seven key criteria for
successful outdoor spaces in childcare centres. However,
observing children in Vancouver childcare settings, she
identified a number of problems relating to the use of large play
structures and their effect on other kinds of play. She also noted
that simple design elements, including movable equipment,
could provide valuable opportunities for challenge. For
example, in one setting practitioners provided a simple tunnel
that offered opportunities for children to crawl through the
tunnel, balance on the tunnel and, later on, move the tunnel.
However, if movable equipment replaces large-scale fixed structures,

some valuable opportunities for physical challenge, for example
swinging and climbing to a height, may be lost. The issues here
remain complex. Each setting will need to find its own solution,
achieving its own balance between safety and challenge in the phys-
ical play curriculum.
This section has explored some of the recurring and complex issues
that arise for practitioners who strive to develop outdoor play as a
key vehicle for young children’s learning. Most teams will need to
allocate time for observation and subsequent discussion to resolve
such issues. Decisions made will have implications for planning.
There may be a need to adjust the long-term plans for a particular
aspect of provision outdoors. Alternatively, changes may be required
in daily planning that inform practitioners’ interactions with
children during specific activities. The next chapter considers curric-
ulum planning as a tool to support practitioners in promoting
children’s development and learning through outdoor play.
Further Reading
Dickins, M. (2008) Listening to Young Disabled Children. London:
National Children’s Bureau.
McNaughton, G. (2000), Rethinking Gender in Early Childhood

Education. London: Paul Chapman.
McNaughton, G. and Williams, G. (2009), Teaching Young Chil-

dren: Choices in Theory and Practice, 2nd edn. Maidenhead,
Berkshire: Open University.
Planning an outdoor
5 curriculum in the
early years
The most effective (excellent) settings (for enhancing child devel-

opment) . . . achieve a balance between the opportunities pro-
vided for children to benefit from teacher-initiated group work
and in the provision of freely chosen, yet potentially instructive,
play activities. (Siraj-Blatchford and Sylva 2004, p. 720)
Outdoor environments offer rich opportunities for child- and

adult-initiated play and activities that can support young children’s
development.
Window on research
Siraj-Blatchford and Sylva (2004) examined practice in a range of
settings for 3- to 5-year-olds and their findings highlight the
complexity of planning a curriculum to offer the right balance of
experiences for this age group. While children seem to benefit
from both freely chosen play activities and planned activities, the
adult planned activities do need to be well matched to children’s
interests and development. It is important to note that child-
initiated play includes instances where children play alone or
with peers, and instances where adults join the play, supporting
development and learning through interaction. Adults are more
likely to interact with children in child-initiated play and activi-
ties in excellent settings rather than good settings. In excellent
settings adults regularly support children’s involvement in
episodes of ‘sustained shared thinking’ (Siraj-Blatchford and
Sylva 2004, p. 724). There is no simple prescription as to the
ideal balance in terms of adult- and child-initiated play, and the
ideal may well change for particular children over time.
73
It seems likely that a balance of experience is also appropriate for

younger children, although the emphasis on freely chosen play is
likely to be greater. Manning-Morton and Thorp (2003, p. 116)
suggest that practitioners need to be sensitive to younger babies,
working to achieve the right balance between ‘scaffolding children’s
play with allowing their autonomous exploration and expression’.
These findings present a challenge for early-years curriculum
planning across age groups, both indoors and outdoors. Through
their planning, practitioners have to provide for an appropriate
balance of adult- and child-initiated play and activities, they have to
tune in to the interests of individual children and groups, they have
to ensure that adults have opportunities to engage in sustained inter-
actions with individual children and small groups, and they have to
facilitate positive interactions between children. A further challenge
outdoors is to plan to take advantage of the special affordances of
outdoor spaces.
To meet these challenges, it is helpful to note the findings of
researchers who have examined planning for this age group.
Window on research
Maynard and Waters (2007) studied outdoor play in four classes
for 4–5-year-olds in Wales. The teachers of these classes had an
idealized view of outdoor play in terms of its potential for
enjoyment, self-direction and physical activity. However, to a
considerable extent their approach to planning the outdoor
curriculum mirrored their planning for indoors. These teachers
only provided outdoor play and activities in good weather and
they used ‘predominantly teacher-directed tasks which focused
on the learning of subject knowledge and basic skills’ (Maynard
and Waters 2007, p. 262). With the exception of some ‘special
activities’ observed in two of the four schools, the teachers
made limited use of natural environments where these were
available. In addition, there was little evidence of planning for
the potential of play and child-initiated activity as starting
points for ‘sustained shared thinking’. Maynard and Waters
suggest several reasons for the divergence between the ideal-
ized view of outdoor play and actual practice outdoors. In
PLANNING AN OUTDOOR CURRICULUM 75
conclusion, they suggest that this duality in the teacher’s think-

ing may relate to the tensions inherent in official curriculum
guidance. Teachers who work within a curriculum framework
that requires them to plan towards specified learning outcomes,
while supporting learning that is child- and process-led, have a
particular challenge to face in planning.
Further issues for planning an outdoor curriculum arise from
Wood’s (2007) discussion of play in early-years settings. Wood
confirms the point above, suggesting that, even where practi-
tioners value play, they may not understand how best to plan for
play or understand their own role in supporting play-based
learning. She also highlights the equity and social justice issues
that arise in relation to a play-based curriculum, where children
make choices that can cut across the needs and interests of
other children. Wood (2007) identifies a further issue, one relat-
ing to play and cultural diversity. Free play and the notion of
choice may be culturally unfamiliar to some young children.
For example, some children in Brooker’s (2005) study of young
children’s transition into a reception class came from Bangla-
deshi homes where they had been prepared to expect a formal
and didactic approach to education. These children struggled to
make sense of very different reception class expectations. One
child’s ‘choice’ was to resist adult attempts to engage her in
play-based activity. As a result, some children from Bangladeshi
homes appeared less competent than they in fact were. This
suggests a need for teachers, during planning for outdoor play,
to be alert to issues of choice.
Curriculum frameworks internationally

The starting point for planning is thinking about the purposes, goals
or objectives of early-years education and care. These are likely to be
shaped by different cultures, and so vary in important ways inter-
nationally (Spodek and Saracho 1996). For example, in 2000 Finland
established a core curriculum for pre-school children for the year
prior to school entry at age 7. One of the key objectives of this
curriculum with relevance for outdoor play is ‘to promote children’s
interest in nature and an idea of their own independence and
responsibility for both nature and the man-made environment’ (Ojala

2005). In England, in contrast, Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS)
practice guidance (DCSF 2008) relating to children up to 5 years
places a high value on outdoor play, but this is framed within a set of
early learning goals with a less explicit orientation towards environ-
mental responsibility. 5-year-olds in England are expected to identify
features of the natural world and express their views about this
world, but not to take on responsibilities for this world. Te Whāriki
(Ministry of Education 1996) provides a further contrast. Young
children in New Zealand are expected to take responsibility for their
environment in very practical ways, for example ‘to develop skills in
caring for the environment, such as cleaning, fixing, gardening, and
helping others with self-care skills’ (Ministry of Education 1996,
p. 58). In the guidance on suitable experiences for toddlers, the
suggestion is that children in this age group have opportunities to
participate in purposeful activities, for example sweeping paths and
using water to wash walls.
These are differences in terms of curriculum goals for children’s
engagement with the environment. However, there are more general
dimensions of difference across countries that influence the pur-
poses, goals or objectives of outdoor play and activity. One key
dimension of difference can be seen in the emphasis that particular
frameworks give to cognitive and affective learning, although these
aspects of learning are likely to be interrelated (Eisner 1996). Curricu-
lum planning has to balance these aspects, for example balancing a
goal for 3-year-olds to count the stepping-stones with a goal for them
to play co-operatively with peers. The nature of this balance is an
area for debate, with different emphases across curricula. A further
dimension of difference can be seen in the emphasis that frameworks
give to curriculum content and the process of learning, and this has
further implications for the planning of outdoor play.
This chapter examines how these dimensions of difference are

reflected in particular curriculum frameworks, comparing frame-
works from Flanders and the Netherlands, New Zealand and
England. It begins by looking at the Experiential Education project,
which Laevers (2000) initially developed as a new approach to
pre-school education in Flanders and the Netherlands. Experiential
Education places a high emphasis on the affective dimensions of
learning and the process of learning. Young children’s ‘emotional

well-being’ and ‘involvement’ are two key concepts. It foregrounds
the following aspects of learning in early childhood:
• emotional health;
• curiosity and the exploratory drive;
• expression and communication skills;
• imagination and creativity;
• the competence of self-organization;
• understanding the world of objects and people.
Experiential Education has influenced curricula and pedagogy in

a number of countries internationally. In England, the influence can
be seen in the work of the Effective Early Learning (EEL) project
(Pascal and Bertram 1997), a distinctive approach to self-evaluation
and action planning for early-years settings.
Te Whāriki (Ministry of Education 1996), the curriculum guidance
for New Zealand, also prioritizes affective learning but with a focus
on the principles of:
• empowerment;
• holistic development;
• family and community;
• relationships.
There is a similar emphasis on affective learning in the curriculum

strands that flow from and interweave these principles:
• Well-being – mana atua (the health and well-being of the child are
protected and nurtured).
• Belonging – mana whenua (children and their families feel a sense
of belonging).
• Contribution – mana reo (opportunities for learning are equitable,
and each child’s contribution is valued).
• Exploration – mana aoturoa (the child learns through active explo-
ration of the environment).
Te Whāriki identifies specific goals for learning and development

within each of these strands, identified as knowledge, skills and atti-
tudes. In addition, it links to essential skills and learning areas from
the curriculum framework for schools. However, learning outcomes

are described as indicative rather than definitive and there is an
opportunity for those in each setting to establish their own curricu-
lum priorities in relation to this framework. Planning for outdoor
play, practitioners can choose to prioritize the development of peer
relationships above the development of counting skills, if this seems
most appropriate for a particular child or group.
In contrast, the EYFS practice guidance for English settings
appears prescriptive, with early learning goals that ‘establish expec-
tations for most children to meet by the end of the reception year’
(DCSF 2008). Early learning goals are conceptualized in terms of
knowledge, skills, understanding and attitudes. They foreground
children’s cognitive learning, while also recognizing the importance
of personal, social and emotional development. Early learning goals
are organized within discrete areas of learning and development:
• Personal, social and emotional development.

• Communication, language and literacy.
• Problem-solving, reasoning and numeracy.
• Knowledge and understanding of the world.
• Physical development.
• Creative development.
The EYFS practice guidance does focus on the affective component

of learning, with ‘dispositions and attitudes’ identified as a key
aspect of personal, social and emotional development (DCSF 2008,
p. 24). It also places the areas of learning and development in the
context of a set of principles, grouped into four key themes, and
these relate to a wider set of 16 commitments. The themes are:
• A unique child.
• Positive relationships.
• Enabling environments.
• Learning and development.
Every Child Matters (ECM) (DfES 2004) is a further framework, repre-

senting the wider policy agenda for children and young people’s
services in England. It proposes a broad set of outcomes, which are
for children and young people to:
• be healthy;
• stay safe;
• enjoy and achieve;
• make a positive contribution;
• achieve economic well-being.
The ECM agenda represents a holistic approach to improving chil-

dren’s lives. It proposes that a range of children’s services, including
early-years services, works collaboratively to promote the five out-
comes. Supporting this approach, the EYFS commitments (DCSF
2008) link to specific outcomes. For example, the commitment to
‘respecting each other’, within the theme of ‘positive relationships’,
links to the ECM outcome for children to ‘make a positive contribu-
tion’. However, while there is a clear focus on emotional well-being
within these frameworks, the balance towards cognitive goals is
greater than in some early-years curricula internationally, and this
emphasis remains prescriptive. Returning to the previous example,
an English practitioner would have to focus on both counting skills
and peer relationships when planning for outdoor play.
Comparing these three frameworks, there is a significant overlap
of purposes, goals and objectives. For example, a focus on the affec-
tive dimension of learning is common to all three frameworks,
although differently identified as ‘emotional health’, ‘well-being’,
and ‘health and well-being’. All three frameworks take children’s
explorations as a key theme and all include a focus on relationships,
although this is expressed as ‘understanding the world of objects
and people’ in Experiential Education. Practitioners working in
different countries, using any of the three frameworks, could plan to
promote these aspects of development through outdoor play.
However, the differences between frameworks are significant, and
there are different challenges for practitioners working within each
framework.
As noted by Maynard (2007), the challenge for the English
approach to planning for outdoor play is to maintain a focus on the
process of learning, while planning towards specific early learning
goals. This is not an issue when planning for ‘exploration and inves-
tigation’, as an aspect of ‘knowledge and understanding of the
world’. Planning for 2-year-olds might focus on the process of
exploring changes in dry sand when mixed with water poured from
watering-cans. However, there could be a tension when planning for
more content-based outcomes outdoors, for example ‘recognize

numerals 1 to 9’.
It is important to note that, even where a framework highlights
learning goals within particular areas of learning, as in the English
guidance (DCSF 2008), early learning is likely to flow over such
boundaries. Many of the outdoor experiences most enjoyed by
young children are rich in potential for cross-curricular learning. For
example, 3-year-olds digging up potatoes in the garden are likely to
be developing:
• large motor skills for digging the heavy soil;

• the scientific skills of observing and comparing potatoes of
different shapes and sizes;
• mathematical language relating to shape and size;
• scientific knowledge and understanding of living things;
• communication and language skills for talking with peers and
adults;
• self-control in waiting for a turn with a spade.
Extending the practical activity, a practitioner could introduce a

picture book about vegetables to share, supporting early literacy
skills, while children could represent and communicate experiences
REFLECTION POINT
What is the potential for cross-curricular learning for toddlers
playing outdoors after a heavy fall of snow?
Using the Early Years Foundation Stage areas of learning from
English guidance, what is the potential to support children’s:
• personal, social and emotional development;
• communication, language and literacy;
• problem-solving, reasoning and numeracy;
• knowledge and understanding of the world;
• physical development;
• creative development?
in the garden through the additional languages of collage, drawing

and painting. With skilled and sensitive teaching, all aspects of this
experience could help shape children’s positive dispositions towards
learning.
Each setting will need to make decisions about the approach to
planning, informed by a range of factors. These will include national
or more local curriculum frameworks and guidance, distinctive fea-
tures of the setting, including the practitioners’ shared philosophy,
and finally the team’s reflections on their own experience of working
with children outdoors. Planning as a team is valuable. It promotes
professional development, providing a context within which prac-
titioners can share and analyse their observations of children, and
ideas to support future learning. The conflicts that arise within
teams, if sensitively handled, can initiate deeper levels of thinking
about individual children and the outdoor curriculum.
Whatever approach to planning that practitioners use, they will
want to ensure that written plans do not limit the opportunities for
learning that arise spontaneously. Therefore, it will be important to
use planning in flexible ways. This is particularly important out-
doors, where unpredictability is a feature of the environment. Daily
planning, for example, can never predict children’s sudden excite-
ment at the appearance of a rainbow or a noisy police helicopter
overhead. Unpredictable events are often the most exciting and
engaging events for children as well as many adults.
The observation and planning cycle

Despite the unpredictability of outdoor experience, the quality of
children’s learning outdoors is likely to relate to the quality of plan-
ning, whatever form this takes. However, as Perry’s (2001) study of
outdoor role-play in an American kindergarten suggests, effective
planning is not an isolated activity. To promote the development and
learning of individuals as well as groups of children, planning can be
seen as part of a continuous cycle, closely linked to the observation,
recording and analysis of children’s learning. In some early-years
traditions, the focus is primarily on the learning and development of
individual children, an approach encouraged by the English and
Welsh frameworks. In other traditions, such as the pre-schools of
Reggio Emilia, planning supports a process of group learning, where
several children are involved in the shared development of thinking.
To meet the challenge of planning for children’s learning and

development through both child-led free play and adult-led group
activities outdoors, it is helpful to consider planning at three differ-
ent levels: long term, medium term and short term. The section
below looks at the purposes and key features of these different kinds
of planning. It uses both real-life and fictional case studies to exem-
plify key ideas and issues. The real-life case studies come from the
well-documented research and development work of Susan Herring-
ton, a landscape designer. The section begins by looking at two
different aspects of long-term planning for outdoor play: first, the
design of outdoor spaces; and second, the long-term plans for areas
of provision outdoors.
Long-term planning: designing the outdoor space

The long-term planning of environments for outdoor play and learn-
ing is about planning the structure and the elements of environments
that will be relatively stable over time, and that provide for continu-
ity in children’s experiences. A well-designed outdoor space should
offer rich opportunities for learning and development, supporting
both child-led free play and, where appropriate, adult-initiated
group activities.
The structures and the elements of the play environment can
include hard landscaping such as paths, low walls, pergolas and
boulders. They can also include soft landscaping such as trees,
bushes, sand and soil. The range and quality of these structures and
elements shape the opportunities for learning. Herrington (2005)
notes a tendency to think of the outdoor space of an early-years
setting as if it was an empty floor space. Practitioners fill their empty
space with equipment and resources taken from a storage shed or an
indoor classroom and return these at the end of the session. An
empty outdoor space has few stable structures and elements, except
perhaps a perimeter fence, a tarmac yard and a closely mown patch
of grass. Without the equipment and resources from the shed, it is
likely to be a boring space for children and adults, offering limited
opportunities for learning and development.
However, if we consider our most intense memories of play as
children, equipment and toys probably played a minor part. On a
beach, in the woods, or on pockets of neglected, urban wasteland, it
is the spaces and materials of the landscape that invite children to

play and that shape their experiences. Therefore, long-term planning
for outdoor spaces should include the design of structures and ele-
ments that offer diverse spaces for play, as well as diverse materials
and plants to support play through the changing seasons and in
different kinds of weather.
Case study: planning an infant garden

Having identified limitations in the ‘empty floor space’ approach to
outdoor play, Herrington (2005) exemplifies an alternative approach
through her account of the design of her Infant Garden. As a land-
scape designer, Herrington carried out an experiment, redesigning
the featureless outdoor space for the youngest children at a day-care
setting. She wanted to see how the long-term features of a natural
landscape might support young children’s learning, describing the
new garden as an ‘outdoor play landscape that would support the
sensorimotor and socio-emotional development of infants as it
occurred in spontaneous exploration’ (Herrington 2005, p. 219).
In the redesigned garden, the simple elements of soil, plants, sand
and stones provided a rich resource for children’s exploratory play.
Key features of the design were a large circular sand tray shaded by
a parachute canopy, a maze with five different edible plants, a trail of
stepping-stones out into the garden, a circle of pine trees and a
variety of plants. Herrington (2005) and her students, who had
watched children at play in the original yard, observed the children
at play in their new garden and compared these observations.
The comparison showed an increase in young children’s spatial
explorations and in the range, complexity and/or intensity of a
number of play behaviours. Herrington’s observations suggested the
rich potential of natural landscapes to support young children’s
social, emotional, physical and cognitive development. This experi-
ment helps to make the case for investing time and resources in the
design and development of natural play landscapes for young
children. There is value in reviewing approaches based on filling
empty spaces with manufactured toys and structures.
Defining spaces
One of the successful features of Herrington’s design in the case
study above is her use of hard and soft landscaping to define spaces,
creating distinctive spaces for different kinds of play.
Window on research
Doctoroff ‘s (2001) review of research findings for indoor spaces
confirms the value of defining spaces. The review suggests that
complex play and increased levels of interaction between peers
can be achieved by defining spaces with visible boundaries.
This is sometimes called zoning when talking about outdoor
spaces.
Bilton (2002) also suggests that zoning can impact positively on the
way in which children use and care for resources (Bilton 2002). As
with Herrington’s (2005) garden, fixed and aesthetically pleasing
divisions of space can be used outdoors, for example walls, seats,
trellis and plantings. Where space is limited and needs to be used
more flexibly, changeable divisions can be improvised, for example
planted tubs, resource trolleys, crates and tyres. However, although
defining spaces is an important strategy in the design of play
environments, it is important to allow flexible use of materials within
this design.
Case study: stepping-stones

Herrington (2005) designed a modification of a school playground
for 2–6-year-olds. A simple, winding pathway of 20 stepping-stones
was introduced, taking children from the doorway of the school into
the yard, to the play equipment and then on to a part of the yard that
was rarely played in before. Observations of the children’s play
showed that this pathway helped to extend children’s exploration of
the environment. It was a relatively small-scale change but it modi-
fied the children’s use of space in significant ways.
Window on research
Herrington (2006), in her study of the design of outdoor spaces
in a sample of childcare centres in Vancouver, noted that chil-
dren were less likely to engage in sustained play in centres
where the use of these resources was tightly controlled. Chil-
dren played for longer when they were free to transport and mix
these materials. In addition, staff spent less time controlling
children’s play. This would allow more time for staff to engage
in sustained interactions with individuals and small groups.
Pathways are another important design element within
outdoor play spaces. They can be made from a variety of mat-
erials, including bricks, paving stones and gravel. The simplest
form of pathway is a worn grass path. Pathways that lead to a
particular place or to somewhere hidden are the most enticing.
A garden for 2- and 3-year-olds had a worn grass path overhung
with trees that led to a willow tepee, offering an invitation to
adventure.
Plants
Plantings can make an important contribution to the design of
outdoor areas. Trees in particular can transform an empty and un-
interesting space in just a few years. Native trees are a relatively
inexpensive resource if bought when small. Therefore, in most
gardens it should be possible to include a small wild area at the edge
of the garden that is attractive to wildlife. As well as native trees,
shrubs and flowers, in many gardens this area can include a bird
feeding station, a log pile and small pieces of carpet on the grass,
providing a dark hiding place for minibeasts.
Case study: a wild area

Herrington (2005) describes a project that involved making subtle
changes to a kindergarten play yard in the United States. A small
area of grass in the corner of the yard was allowed to grow. This had
been an uninteresting and a static place previously. However, this
small area soon became a special place. The children imagined how
high the grass might grow, they made patterns by flattening the
grass, they played hide and seek, and they enjoyed searching out the
flowers and minibeasts that began to appear. The little patch of grass
was so special that when the maintenance workers arrived to mow
it down, the children blocked the way. Their views of what was
important in the garden were made very clear and the maintenance
workers were sent away until the end of the school year.
Long-term planning: areas of provision

Long-term plans can be developed for specific areas of play provi-
sion. Linked to indoor plans, these highlight the ways in which
outdoor provision complements and extends indoor learning. For
example, long-term plans for an indoor water tray could be linked to
outdoor planning that allows children to explore the properties of
water on a more expansive scale and with fewer restrictions on the
messy elements of play. Rather than simply duplicating indoor pro-
vision, it is important to think through the distinctive opportunities
for learning outdoors.
REFLECTION POINT
Think about how to provide for exploratory outdoor water
play for toddlers or young children on a large scale.
Imagine you have £50 to spend in a large DIY store.
• What resources would you buy?
• How would you set these up?
• How would you support the play as an adult?
• What are the safety issues to consider?
Continuous or near-continuous provision outdoors can support

the learning of children at very different stages of development and
with different approaches to learning. This is a useful approach to
use from the point when children are confidently mobile outdoors.
Illustration 5.1: Water play
Open-ended resources such as sand and water can be used in differ-

ent ways by children who are at different levels in terms of knowl-
edge, understanding and skills. The opportunities that are offered
for children to repeat experiences are important and enable children
to consolidate their learning (Rushton and Larkin 2001). In particu-
lar, the predictability of continuous provision enables children to
plan their learning and to develop and extend ideas over time.
A large play area for older children would be able to incorporate
all or most of the areas of provision suggested below, with a wide
choice of resources. A smaller play area for children between 1 and 2
years could incorporate several areas, depending on the interest of
the group. It would be appropriate to keep the range of resources
relatively restricted so as not to overwhelm children with too many
choices.
Key areas of outdoor provision to include are:
An area or areas for natural materials

This can include wet and dry sand, water and soil. Additional mat-
erials can be provided at times, for example bark chippings, autumn
leaves or shingle in a giant tractor tyre. A range of resources can be
provided to support the exploration of these materials, including
containers of various sizes, spades and shovels, pipes and guttering.
It is also valuable to provide equipment for transporting materials
such as trucks and wheelbarrows.
Illustration 5.2: Sand tray
A large construction area

This can include hollow blocks, crates, tyres and planks. Props to
support imaginative play can be provided, for example a steering
wheel, blankets, dolls and mark-making materials in a carry-box.
A den area
A den building area might be an extension of the large construction
area. It can include cardboard boxes, a clothes horse, a variety of
fabric and large pegs.
A quiet area
Set out on a rug or table, this area could include small construction
materials, jigsaws, mathematical apparatus such as small building
blocks or a dolls’ house. It would be appropriate to change resources
in relation to children’s changing interests.
A creative area
This can incorporate painting in various forms, including painting
on easels, and tables. Large-scale painting can be done on large
sheets of paper on the floor or attached to fencing. Mark-making
materials can be included, including chunky chalks for the floor or
wall. A portable box with paper, card, notebooks, pencils and adhe-
sive tape is a valuable resource that children can take to different
parts of the play area.
A music area
A small selection of percussion instruments on a rug or low table can
be included in this area. Nursery-rhyme books and a collection of
scarves to use for dancing are a useful addition.
Small apparatus
Appropriate apparatus would be a basketball net and ball, bats and
balls, quoits, beanbags and hoops.
Physical activity space

If space is available, a large space for running and physical games,
including ball games and tag, should be provided.
A physical play area

Climbing equipment can be provided on a safety surface. Loose pieces
that can be assembled in different ways offer flexibility and variety, for
example tunnels, hidey cubes, steps, planks, A-frames and ladders.
A role-play area
One or more role-play areas can be included:
• A garage and/or car wash role-play area can extend play with
wheeled toys. This can include a petrol pump, a cash register,
tool set, car manuals, a Highway Code, an AA book and lamin-
ated maps.
• Home-corner resources can provide a link between indoor and

outdoor play, for example a hob and kitchen equipment, tea set,
dolls, soft toys and pushchairs. A bucket of water can be used to
extend play with the tea set.
• A baby bathing area can be created with a baby bath on crates or
a table, dolls to bathe, towels and a baby-changing area.
• A shop structure can be used to develop shopping play, with
shopping baskets, wallets, purses and bags.
A roadway area
A permanent or improvised roadway area can be developed with
props, including traffic signs, road markings and numbered parking
bays. This might link to the garage role play outlined above. Dress-
ing-up resources can be included, for example helmets and tabards
for firefighters.
A garden area
A garden area can be developed for growing flowers and vegetables.
Plants can be grown in borders, in a chequerboard garden, raised
beds, hanging baskets, tubs and painted tyres. Watering-cans with a
bucket of water can be provided.
Number area
A number area could include small apparatus games such as
coloured bean-bags to be thrown into coloured buckets. It could also
include a number washing-line, number cards for hop-scotch,
skittles and a giant dice for number games. The area could link to a
book corner, with a selection of number stories, songs and rhymes
that can be acted out.
A book corner
An outdoor book corner could include rugs, blankets, chairs, a large
log or crates as seating. There should be different kinds of books,
including books that relate to outdoor interests. It could also incor-
porate a laminated weather chart, with books about the weather, as
well as laminated song and rhyme sheets.
Areas of provision can be provided on different scales, depending on

budget and available space. For example, a crate with three small
percussion instruments could serve as a music area. Alternatively,
Illustration 5.3: Numbers
giant-sized percussion instruments or musical mobiles could be

provided as a permanent feature.
It is important to ensure a balance of activities, with space for vig-
orous, active play, as well as space for quieter play. Some children,
particularly children who are new to the setting, may need tempting
out into outdoor areas and are likely to be frightened or over-
whelmed by an area that is dominated by active play.
While most outdoor provision works well as discrete areas, flexi-
bility is important. It may be appropriate for some play to flow
between areas. For example, in large play areas, play with bikes,
scooters and trolleys is enhanced when children have opportunities
to make real journeys between interesting places. A wide and
winding track for wheeled toys could pass through, for example, a
role-play area, large construction area and wild area. Each stop offers
OBSERVATION POINT
Undertake some observations in a well-developed and varied
outdoor play area.
• What spaces do children use for quieter play in pairs or
groups of three?
• What is the quality of peer interaction?
• What is special about the places that children choose?
opportunities for social or imaginative interaction. In smaller areas,

bike play that spills out into other kinds of play can be intrusive and
sometimes dangerous. A more confined and flexible roadway area
may be appropriate. Adults can involve children in discussion of
roadway design and the need to avoid interrupting other activities
by drawing the roadway during the session with playground chalk.
The case study that follows provides an example of a team working

on long-term planning for an area of provision for 3–5-year-olds.
Case study: planning a large construction area

Narinder had recently joined Cross Flatts Nursery School and had
special responsibility for mathematical and technological learning.
After a term, Narinder shared her observations with the team and
discussed development work in the outdoor area. As a newcomer,
she had observed that mathematical learning was a strength of the
setting but was mainly focused indoors. In terms of technology,
children worked well with small construction sets, but other activi-
ties seemed to be too adult-directed, offering few opportunities for
children to develop their own ideas. The large and attractive outdoor
space could be important in providing a large construction area to
strengthen these two aspects of the curriculum.
The team worked over a number of months, developing plans. As
they discussed resources, Miriam also shared ideas developed from
her reading. She wanted the team to provide open-ended resources,
for example blocks, crates, tyres and planks, allowing children to
create their own role-play environments. A wheeled trolley would be
particularly useful, functioning as bus, lorry, ambulance or fire

engine, depending on the children’s chosen play theme. Miriam
explained how social interaction and language use improves when
children use open-ended materials and have to negotiate meanings.
The team were encouraged that Miriam’s and Narinder’s ideas
seemed to mesh so well.
Illustration 5.4 shows the team’s long-term planning for the large
construction area. It uses the framework of the English practice guid-
ance (DCSF 2008) but incorporates aspects of thinking about learning
dispositions from Te Whāriki (Ministry of Education 1996).
WHAT WILL THE CHILDREN LEARN?
Skills:
Designing and constructing
Planning
Predicting
Identifying problems/problem-solving
Evaluating
Comparing
Marching and sorting
Counting
Sharing and co-operating
Communicating
Negotiating
Asking questions
Imagining
Taking on a role
Climbing, jumping, balancing
Reading and mark-making
Learning dispositions:
Taking an interest
Being involved
Persisting with challenge and difficulty
Expressing an idea / feeling / point of view
Taking responsibility
Knowledge and understanding of:

Materials, e.g. wood, plastic, rubber, net
Balance and symmetry
Shape and space
Measurement
Size
Transportation
Position, e.g. on, off, under, behind
Connection
Horizontality and verticality
Grids
Enclosure and envelopment
Adult roles
Print
KEY EARLY LEARNING GOALS

Knowledge and understanding of the world:
• Ask questions about why things happen and how things work.
• Build and construct with a wide range of objects, selecting appro-
priate resources, and adapting their work where necessary.
• Investigate objects and materials by using all of their senses as
appropriate.
Physical development:
• Show awareness of space, of themselves and of others.
• Use a range of small and large equipment.
Problem-solving, reasoning and numeracy:

• Use developing mathematical ideas and methods to solve
practical problems.
• Use language such as ‘circle’ or ‘bigger’ to describe the shape and
size of solids and flat shapes.
• Use everyday words to describe position.
Creative development:
• Explore colour, texture, shape, form and space in two or three
dimensions.
• Use their imagination in art and design – and role play.

• Express and communicate their ideas, thoughts and feelings by
using a widening range of materials, suitable tools, imaginative
and role play, movement, designing and making . . .
RESOURCES
Hollow blocks
Crates, tyres, cones, ropes
Trolley
Toolset, measuring tape
Mark-making box
Book box with fiction and non-fiction books
Laminated song and rhyme sheets
Album of photos of children’s work
Box of fabric
Pegs
THE ADULT ROLE

Make continuous provision with regular adult observation and
interaction.
Encourage children to experiment with the materials.
Introduce appropriate vocabulary and questions to extend children’s
thinking.
Take on a play-tutoring role with inexperienced children.
Provide supplementary resources in labelled baskets.
Take digital photographs of children working.
Introduce laminated sheets of photos and albums as a stimulus to
ideas.
Introduce props in response to children’s ideas and play themes.
Introduce ‘girl day’ sessions if the area is dominated by boys.
Illustration 5.4: Long-term planning for a large construction area

Evaluating long-term plans

It is important for teams to evaluate planning for outdoor learning.
The evaluation of long-term plans is considered in detail here. It is
important to give similar consideration to the evaluation of medium-
and short-term plans.
Long-term plans for key areas of outdoor provision can be
reviewed over time, perhaps focusing on an area every six to eight
weeks. When monitoring an area, it is useful to ask general questions
about how the area is working, for example:
• Which children work in the area?

• How regularly do children return to the area?
• What is the approximate length of time children stay in the area?
• What do children do and say in the area?
• What are children learning in the area?
An observation record (Illustration 5.5) on a clipboard can support

practitioners in undertaking regular but brief observations.
As practitioners evaluate areas, they can draw on their observ-
ation to ask questions and make judgements about the effectiveness
of the outdoor provision. For example, practitioners evaluating the
outdoor construction area might ask:
• Do girls and boys regularly become involved in designing and

building?
• Are children identifying problems and finding solutions to prob-
lems?
• Are children using mathematical language to talk about shape
and space?
Judgements made can inform decisions about necessary changes to

enhance the opportunities for learning outdoors. The observation
record also provides ideas for supporting the learning of groups and
individuals who are working at very different levels.
An additional approach to evaluation of the outdoor curriculum
involves monitoring across areas of provision. Here, the focus of
monitoring could be on the opportunities for learning within a
AREA OF PROVISION: LARGE CONSTRUCTION
Date: 20.01.09
Children Activity, language and learning Next steps
Amrit, Davinder Worked co-operatively, building. Introduce books

Megan A princess castle. about castles.
Enclosure made with crates. Note
Cones placed on top. architecture,
Amrit: ‘Let’s make our bed here e.g. turrets.
cos it’s bedtime now and the Suggest drawing
princesses are tired.’ (1 hr approx.) plans of castles.
Connor Working alone, loads crates Encourage and

onto trolley and transports across support play with
playground. Tips crates in a pile. play partner.
‘I’ve got loads of bricks.’ (10 mins) Look at photos of
simple
constructions.
Mohammed, Placed crates in a horizontal Provide a

Jack line. Added tyres vertically. commentary on
‘We’re friends, right.’ actions, e.g.’That
‘Yeh, mate.’ crate’s going next to
that one. You’re
making a line now.’
Illustration 5.5: An observation record
specific curriculum area, for example ICT. Alternatively, the focus

could be on an aspect of the curriculum such as cultural diversity.
The next case study provides an example of monitoring a curriculum
area.
Case study: monitoring the use of ICT

The staff at Hillcrest Early Years Centre had recently attended in-
service training focused on ICT. They were particularly interested in
approaches used in British, Portuguese and Swedish settings (Siraj-
Blatchford and Siraj-Blatchford 2003), where ICT had been inte-
grated into aspects of play-based provision. All agreed on the value
of increasing children’s awareness of the uses of ICT in everyday
contexts, to promote positive dispositions towards learning about
and through ICT. It was decided that development work would start
with an audit of provision indoors and outdoors, followed by a
listing of possible developments (Illustration 5.6, opposite).
Although aware that ICT might not link to all areas of provision,
they decided to consider each area in turn.
Medium-term planning for outdoor learning

Areas of outdoor play provision, which are available continuously or
near continuously, provide the main context for children’s learning
outdoors. However, there are times when medium-term themes or
enhancements, planned in response to children’s interests and think-
ing, can enrich opportunities for learning outdoors. These may arise
from predictable and interesting events, for example a cold spell of
wintry weather that promises frost, ice and possibly snow. They can
also be developed from children’s observed interests. Children’s
preoccupation with the schemas of going through and enveloping
(Athey 2007), for example, can provide a useful starting point for
building dens or a role-play camp. Favourite stories, such as The
Three Billy Goats Gruff, also provide starting points for medium-term
enhancements of provision.
Some medium-term plans will focus solely on outdoor provision,
for example a focus on dens. However, in many cases medium-term
planning will offer links between indoor and outdoor learning. For
example, children’s fascination with the first spring bulbs in the
garden might be supported and extended through creative work
using a variety of art media, both indoors and outdoors.
When planning themes and enhancements, the duration should be
flexible and responsive to children’s interests. However, it is impor-
tant to note the importance of repetition for young children’s learn-
ing. This is evidenced by children’s repeated requests for favourite
OUTDOOR ICT AUDIT
Outdoor provision Existing ICT Possible ICT

provision provision
Wet and dry sand
Painting area
Water area
Digging areas
Large construction Mobile phones.
Programmable toy vehicles.
Small construction
Mark-making area
Music area Battery-operated children’s
tape-recorder for music.
Garden area
Wild area
Physical area
Role-play area Telephone box. Mobile phones.
Toy microwave. Electric till for shop.
Walkie-talkies (police
and fire-fighter role play).
Roadway Traffic lights. Mobile phones.
Electronic till for garage.
Calculator in garage.
Programmable toy vehicles.
Book area Album of outdoor photos
taken with digital camera.
General provision Digital camera.
Related indoor Video clips and internet.
provision Links extending outdoor
experiences, e.g. butterfly
life-cycle.
Illustration 5.6: Outdoor ICT audit

stories, songs and rhymes. Elliot (1999) suggests that repeated expe-
riences are not only enjoyable but help to reinforce valuable neural
pathways in the brain. To ensure that outdoor environments offer
opportunities for repeated experience and allow children to con-
solidate and extend learning, it is important that key activities and
experiences are offered over time. Children, for example, may enjoy
the novelty of a role-play garage for a week, but they are likely to
gain more from involvement in the development of a play theme
over a more extended period.
Two case studies below consider medium-term planning. The first
is for a class of 4- and 5-year-olds, and the second is for a small group
of under-2s.
Case study: medium-term planning around favourite stories

Lian and Jim worked in the Karinga Infant School reception class. They
had noticed that two favourite picture books were stories about young
children playing outdoors. One of these, Sally’s Secret (Hughes 1992)
centred on a girl of about 4 who loved finding places in which to hide.
She made houses in all sorts of secret places, both alone and with her
best friend. Lian and Jim felt that this story, with its bird, ladybird and
cat, each welcomed as visitors into the girl’s secret house, captured the
reception children’s delight in being outdoors, close to the natural
world. Another favourite story, Whistle for Willie (Keats 1964) was set in
the contrasting urban landscape of an American city. In this story, Peter
also enjoyed finding places in which to hide, and playing at grown-
ups, in this case accompanied by his dog Willie.
Lian and Jim used the two books to stimulate talk about what the
reception children liked most outdoors. Dens, animals and playing
with friends were high on the list. This seemed to be a great starting
point for a summertime enhancement of the reception garden.
Thinking through their plans, Lian and Jim were particularly pleased
to have an opportunity to develop a focus on friendship. Two new
children had recently joined the class, and one of them, Carly, was
having difficulty settling into the group. Lian and Jim felt that the
planned activities would provide a good context for supporting inte-
gration of the new children.
Following discussions, Lian and Jim drew up a medium-term plan
(Illustration 5.7, opposite), drawing on the Experiential Education
curriculum framework (Laevers 2000).
KARINGA RECEPTION CLASS: MEDIUM-TERM PLANNING
Focus of interest / theme: Outdoor play stories, songs and rhymes
Date: June 2003 Expected duration: 4 weeks
Key learning goals:

• Emotional health.
• Curiosity and the exploratory drive.
• Expression and communication skills.
• Imagination and creativity.
• The competence of self-organization.
• Understanding the world of objects and people.
Focus activities and experiences:

• Listen to and discuss stories and rhymes about outdoor play.
• Talk about special friends and make sure that everyone has a play
partner.
• Negotiate and record plans for dens and secret houses.
• Build and evaluate dens and secret houses using a variety of
materials.
• Explore the properties of materials to keep out the sun on hot days
and keep out the rain on wet days.
• Use language to create roles and stories while playing in dens and
secret houses.
• Search for and closely observe animals in the garden, e.g. birds,
spiders, ladybirds, beetles, worms, butterflies.
• Use books, video clips and the internet to find out more about the
animals observed.
• Record observations of animals through drawing, painting, collage
and clay work.
Resources:
• Wild area.
• Crates, blocks, logs.
• Folding clothes-dryer.
• Quadro frames.
• Variety of fabrics, e.g. net, cotton, muslin, plastic, wool.
• Variety of joining materials, e.g. pegs, bulldog clips, string,

masking tape.
• Role-play props, e.g. tea-set, dolls, soft animals.
• Natural materials for role play, e.g. pine cones, pebbles, shells.
• Laminated song and rhyme sheets, e.g. ‘Ladybird, ladybird, fly
away home’.
• Outdoor stories, e.g. ‘Sally’s Secret’, ‘Whistle for Willie’
• Magnifiers.
• Reference books about birds and mini-beasts.
• Art boards for outdoor drawing, pencils, charcoal, pastels.
• Indoor art area, computers and video.
Appropriate questions (present, future, past):

• What materials will you need?
• How will you join the materials?
• How will you make it strong?
• Which material do you think will keep out the hot sun/wet rain?
• What do you think will happen if . . . ?
• Was it a good house? In what ways? How could you have made it
better?
• What can you see if you look very closely? What is it doing?
Appropriate vocabulary:
• Large, small, shape, space, straight, tall, long, wide, high, narrow.
• Join, connect, fasten.
• Strong, weak.
• Warm, cool, wet, dry, waterproof, shade.
• Net, cotton, muslin, plastic, wool, card, foil, wood.
• Pine cones, pebbles, shells, soil, grass.
• Bird names, spider, ladybird, beetle, ant, worm, caterpillar,
butterfly, centipede.
• Soft, smooth, slippery, furry, spiky, prickly, shiny.
Involvement of parents/carers:
• Send song and rhyme sheets home.
• Send home tally sheet for children to record animals seen at home
in a day.
• Invite parent/family helpers to support the work.
Illustration 5.7: Medium-term planning

At the end of this successful focus, Lian and Jim evaluated their
planning and the work undertaken, to inform future practice. They
asked questions relating to the following aspects:
• Timing.
• Manageability.
• The balance of child-initiated and adult-directed work.
• Matching to children’s interests.
• Matching to children’s developmental levels.
• Quality and range of resources.
• Involvement of parents/carers.
• Evidence of children’s learning.
Case study: medium-term planning for a building site focus

Jessie lived close to Oakwood Child-care Centre and she enjoyed
walking to the centre with her son Jack in his pushchair before
setting off for a job in the city. Jack was 18 months old and had been
at the centre for two months now. Jessie was very pleased with how
well he had settled, but was a bit worried at his apparent lack of
sharing skills. He was a first child and so had little experience of
sharing at home and she had seen him snatch toys from other chil-
dren several times at nursery. In the last week, work had started on
the large building site that Jessie and Jack passed on their way to the
centre. They had watched as large bulldozers flattened the ground,
and now a crane had been brought onto the site. Jack was so excited
by this new event that he was very cross when Jessie insisted it was
time to stop watching and go to the centre.
When they got to the centre, Jack was still cross, and Simon, his
key person, asked what the matter was. Jessie and Jack between
them managed to explain, and so Simon took Jack off to find his
favourite book about diggers when Jessie had gone. His crossness
soon disappeared as he became engrossed in looking at the different
diggers and listening to the simple story. When it was time to go
outside, Jack was still holding onto his book about diggers and was
quite reluctant to join any other play.
Simon made some quick notes in Jack’s profile about his interest in
the building site and in the book about diggers. He also noted how
Jack had sadly said, at the end of the story, ‘digger gone’. This was
one of the first times that staff had heard him put two words
together. Simon took Jack’s profile along to the planning meeting the
next day, together with profiles for his other children. Discussing
Jack’s reluctance to give up his diggers book to any other children,
Simon suggested an idea for an enhancement of the outdoor sand
tray. This seemed to be the right time to introduce a building site
theme into the sand play, resourcing the area with a variety of large
diggers, some new books about building sites and some laminated
song and rhyme sheets. The team agreed to develop a medium-term
plan for this enhancement. It seemed to be an interest that was likely
to last for several weeks and could possibly last until all the new
homes on the site were completed.
Short-term planning for outdoor learning

Early-years settings are complex organizations and may include chil-
dren with diverse needs. Usually, there is a wide range of activities
on offer and there will be at least two adults in the staff team. A
variety of other adults may be present, including parents, carers,
students and other professionals. In complex settings of this kind,
short-term planning is the key to ensuring that long- and medium-
term plans for the outdoor area are effectively realized. Short-term
planning provides a framework for focused teaching with individu-
als, as well as small and large groups. It can be used to ensure an
appropriate balance in the adult support provided for adult-initiated
and child-initiated play and activities. The case study below consid-
ers issues relating to short-term planning for outdoor play.
Case study: short-term planning

At the Bennett Street Nursery weekly staff meeting, Di and Woan
Chan shared their recent observations of children’s learning in the
outdoor area. The children in the group were 3 to 4 years old and
there were several children in the group who still flitted from activity
to activity with few signs of involvement. Both practitioners were
concerned that the current staff rota, moving adults between areas
several times a day, was contributing to superficial levels of adult
engagement with play. This seemed to be particularly problematic
outdoors, where some staff took on a primarily supervisory role.
Although children played happily outside, conflicts were relatively
common, and more complex play unusual. Both practitioners felt
frustrated by a lack of opportunity to tackle these problems in a sus-

tained way, and proposed changes to the staffing schedule to allow
staff to focus on each area for a week. They hoped that this would
support higher levels of engagement by both children and staff.
Some staff opposed the change, primarily because weather condi-
tions sometimes made the outdoor role difficult. However, with
agreement to allow for flexibility in poor weather, the team decided
to trial this new approach. The new weekly planning grid, with
indoor and outdoor focus activities, is shown in Illustration 5.8.
Rota for week beginning: 18.10.03
Mon. Tues. Wed. Thurs. Fri.
Outside Di Obstacle course Planting bulbs
Carpeted
area Emma Storytelling focus
Tiled wet
area Nick Colour-mixing focus
Flexible Woan Chan

staff
Rona (student)
Illustration 5.8: Weekly rota and focus activities
The Bennett Street team agreed to retain other effective aspects of

their short-term planning. Their observation focus worked well, and
this, with evaluations of focus activities, was important in feeding
back into future planning. They also liked having three adults
responsible for areas, while the fourth and any additional adults
were used more flexibly. This flexibility was particularly important
when large numbers of children chose to play outside. It also meant
that an adult was available to provide support when someone was
leading an activity such as planting bulbs. The team was particularly
keen to retain a balance of adult time between focus activities, devel-
oped from long- and medium-term plans, and engagement with the
spontaneous child-led events of the day.
The Bennett Street team had agreed to focus regularly on physical

play. They wanted all children to enjoy active, physical play, and
they aimed to provide appropriate levels of challenge for physically
confident children. This week’s outdoor planning for an obstacle
course was drawn from long-term plans for the physical area (Illus-
tration 5.9, opposite). The second outdoor plan was for a focus on
planting bulbs, drawn from long-term plans for the garden area.
At the end of the week, however, the weather changed from warm
and sunny to persistent rain. The ground was muddy and it was not
good weather for planting bulbs. However, the team had in place
some flexible planning for a rainy day, supported by a range of
resources stored in boxes. These included spare wellies and water-
proof clothes, a variety of umbrellas, containers, pipes and guttering
for collecting, measuring and moving water, as well as several story
books and laminated cards with songs and rhymes about rainy
weather. Despite some short bursts of heavy rain, Di was able to
work effectively outdoors through the week, with groups of children
enthusiastic to play out in the rain or to watch with fascination from
the shelter of a small play-house.
The adult role

Consideration of the adult role is a key aspect of planning for
outdoor play and an important consideration at each level of plan-
ning. The adult role as educator is far more concerned with inter-
action than the primarily supervisory role of adults during school
playtimes or lunch periods.
Window on research
Perry’s (2001) case study of an American nursery school suggests
that, although skilled practitioners will often leave children to
play independently, this should arise from a careful judgement
about how, when or if to intervene, based on detailed observa-
tions of individuals and groups.
Research suggests a key role for adults in supporting young
children’s learning, particularly through language (Wood et al.
1980; Wells 1987; Nind 2001; Siraj-Blatchford et al. 2002).
BENNETT STREET NURSERY: SHORT-TERM PLANNING
Adult: Di
Focus area: Physical development

Activity area/s: Outdoor physical area
Learning goals:
To explore movement to travel around, under, over and through large
apparatus.
To use language to talk about actions.
Monitoring and assessment:
Observe children’s levels of confidence, motivation to explore move-
ment and use of language to talk about actions.
Grouping:
Friendship groups of up to four.
Individual needs:
Extension: explore and describe new ways of moving.
New children learning English as an Additional Language: focus on
highlighted vocabulary.
Encourage participation with adult support: Maria, Sian, Kiranjit, Jamie.
Activity:
Children help to set up the obstacle course, explaining how the appara-
tus could be used.
Free movement on the obstacle course.
Resources:
Hollow blocks and planks, hurdles, flexible and rigid tunnels, plastic
steps, hoops, rope.
Key questions:
Questions about the present: e.g. What are you doing? Which part is
touching the bench?
Questions about the future: e.g. How could you do it differently next
time?
Questions about the past: e.g. Can you remember how you first moved
through the tunnel . . . and then how you did it?
Key vocabulary:
Provide a commentary on actions, e.g. ‘You are high up.’
Names of apparatus, body parts, high, low, around, under, over,
through, on, top, slow, fast, slide, pull, crawl, wriggle, stretch, jump.
Illustration 5.9: Short-term planning

Nind (2001), who led an action-research study focused on lan-

guage development in the early-years unit of a London primary
school, identified a special role for outdoor play as an effective
context for children’s talk. These studies suggest the need for
adults to adopt an informal, conversational style outdoors, fol-
lowing the lead of children’s play and talk. It seems that more
controlling and managerial adult styles place unintended blocks
on opportunities for learning through language. Siraj-Blatchford
et al. (2002, p. 10) suggest that the most effective adult–child
interactions take place over longer periods than more typically
brief adult–child exchanges and incorporate elements of
‘sustained shared thinking’.
Adults have a key role as conversational partners during
outdoor play. The role of play tutor (Aubrey et al. 2000), where
the adult joins in play to provide a model and to suggest or
extend play ideas, is also an important one. This is particularly
important where adults are working with children who are inex-
perienced players.
The final case study provides a real-life example of an adult in this

modelling role as she implements her short-term planning. The story
and photographs are from Parklands Children’s Centre.
Case study: We’re going on a bear hunt

Gina and Helen were outdoors and, although the weather was cold
with light rain, a large group of children had chosen to play out-
doors. Helen was playing at the sand tray with a new child, Imran,
and Gina was leading on the week’s focus activity for outdoors. This
involved supporting the 3- and 4-year-olds in reading and acting out
the We’re Going on a Bear Hunt story, using the version by Michael
Rosen and Helen Oxenbury (1993). The team had chosen this story
as the focus of short-term planning because several team members
had noticed the children’s love of scarey stories and rhymes. Books
with grizzly bears and monsters were a real favourite at storytimes
and several of the children loved to act out these stories, both within
the confines of the indoor setting at storytimes as well as outdoors.
The group of 3- and 4-year-olds included children with developmen-

tal delays in relation to language, and team members were confident
that the repeated story-reading throughout the week would support
the children’s development in this important area.
Gina took the book outside and soon a small group of children had
gathered around her. Two children had even started to read the story
themselves while she was catching up with Ashley’s exciting news
about his new baby.
Illustration 5.10: Bear Hunt 1 – the story
Gina praised the children for their reading and then read the story
herself, attracting a growing group as the story progressed. Soon it
was time to act out the story, beginning with the selection of a scarey
bear. Nearly all the children wanted to take on this role, but Gina
choose Elly. She had listened to the story attentively although she
was sometimes an uninvolved listener at indoor storytimes. Elly ran
off excitedly into the woodland area to find a cave to hide in.
Illustration 5.11: Bear Hunt 2 – the bear
Now it was time to search for the bear. Gina read each part of the
story and modelled the actions: first wading through the long grass,
then splashing through the deep river, next wading through the thick
mud, and then stumbling through the dark forest.
Illustration 5.12: Bear Hunt 3 – the forest
It was all acted out with intense emotions and lots of vigorous
movement. Some of the newer children stayed close to Gina, who
wasn’t quite sure if they were acting out being scared or were actu-
ally scared. Whichever it was, with the security that her presence
provided, they were enjoying the experience.
Illustration 5.13: Bear Hunt 4 – ‘We’re not scared’
The part the children particularly enjoyed was the swirling snow-
storm. Gina soon found she had as many as ten children who had all
come together in the playground area to swirl and twirl until they
were quite giddy. Finally the adventure came to an end and the bear
ran away just before being caught. However, it wasn’t actually the
end as the children asked Gina to repeat the story-telling several
times more during the outdoor play session.
As these case studies show, well-planned outdoor learning environ-

ments provide rich opportunities for learning but raise some specific
planning issues. This chapter has presented a flexible approach to
planning that includes positive strategies to support learning and
teaching outdoors, while taking account of some key issues.
In the earlier discussion of curriculum frameworks, reference was
made to the ways in which purposes and goals are shaped by diverse
cultures and vary across curriculum frameworks (Spodek and
Saracho 1996). The next chapter provides some contrasting and suc-
cessful examples of approaches to planning an outdoor curriculum,
shaped by very different cultural contexts.
Further Reading
Curtis, D. and Carter, M. (2003), Design for Living and Learning.
St Paul, MN: Red Leaf Press.
Drake, J. (2001), Planning Children’s Play and Learning in the

Foundation Stage. London: David Fulton.
White, J. (2008), Playing and Learning Outdoors. Abingdon: Rout-

ledge.
Outdoor learning in
6 early-years curricula
internationally
Each culture identifies the content of its education in relation to

the knowledge it values, not just for personal growth, but
because it reflects the society’s view of what is true, what is
right, what is beautiful. (Spodek and Saracho 1996, p. 11)
Outdoor play and learning is identified as an important strand of the

early childhood curriculum in many countries. However, there are
differences in approach and emphasis that reflect the contrasting
values of different countries, shaped by ‘cultural, economic, political
and historic factors’ (Ofsted 2003, p. 43). While it is not possible or
appropriate to replicate in detail practice from very different cultural
contexts, it is valuable to look at the ideas informing practice in other
countries (Spodek and Saracho 1996; Ofsted 2003). Earlier in this
book, an example of practice in a Japanese nursery was presented.
This highlighted the cultural importance of natural world experi-
ences for the very youngest children in Japan. This was a nursery
where outdoor play for babies was a daily event. An example of
innovative garden design for toddlers attending an American
nursery has also been presented. Both these examples offer positive
models of practitioners and a designer who place a high value on
outdoor play for babies and toddlers. However, examples of babies
and toddlers enjoying outdoor play in different cultural contexts are
difficult to find, possibly reflecting a relatively widespread lack of
attention to the affordances of outdoor play experiences for this age
group. Therefore the examples below focus on the experiences of
older children, from ages 3 to 6, and present three very different
examples of successful outdoor learning from the contrasting cul-
tural contexts of northern Italy, England and Norway.
115
The Villetta pre-school in Reggio Emilia

The first pre-school of Reggio Emilia, in northern Italy, was founded
on Liberation Day in 1945, at the end of the war. The community of
this town came together to build a pre-school from the rubble of
destroyed buildings, creating a symbol of promise for a better future.
Growing out of these special circumstances and following the defeat
of fascism in Italy, the Reggio Emilia schools developed a unique
philosophy. This distinctive approach, emphasizing the child as
confident and competent, rich in potential, was developed by Loris
Malaguzzi in collaboration with early-years educators, parents and
the community (Penn 1997). It has inspired interest internationally.
One important strand within the Reggio Emilia philosophy is the
emphasis on the physical environment and resources for children’s
learning (Dudek 2000). The environment, in interaction with chil-
dren and resources, is seen as ‘the third teacher’; it includes both the
nursery garden and the wider environment of the town. Another
important strand is the social-constructivist philosophy: children are
encouraged to develop their thinking in the supportive social con-
texts provided by peers and teachers. One special outdoor project
undertaken by 3–6-year-olds at Villetta pre-school, ‘the amusement
park for birds’ (Reggio Children 1995), provides a fascinating
example of these strands in practice.
Five- and six-year-olds initiated the idea for the project during a
series of extensive class discussions around the needs of the birds that
inhabited the school grounds. Having settled on the exciting idea of
creating an amusement park for the birds, the children set out on their
co-operative project. One of the children’s important ideas was to
provide fountains for the birds. The research therefore began with two
field trips, where children observed, talked about, drew and photo-
graphed the beautiful fountains of their city. Following extensive
discussion and drawing activity back in the pre-school, the children
made models with clay, and painted and engaged in extended theoriz-
ing about the workings of the fountains. Finally, with the support of
their teachers, the children were ready to experiment with water,
pipes, tanks, sprays, water-wheels and a variety of other materials to
create model fountains. Following an extended period of exploratory
work, a variety of complex and beautiful fountains was constructed in
the garden of the school, set out as an amusement park for the birds,
and opened with a special community celebration.
OUTDOOR LEARNING INTERNATIONALLY 117
It is the process of, first, developing ideas as a group, and second,

communicating these through a range of languages that are two of
the most important aspects of this outdoor project. As they work
together through the different stages of the project, these children are
developing a rich repertoire of ‘logical, co-operative, expressive,
imaginative and symbolic’ languages (Reggio Children 1995, p. 16).
Images of the distinctive Reggio Emilia pre-schools and examples
of the children’s creative work can be found at the following URL:
http://zerosei.comune.re.it/inter/nidiescuole.htm.
Forest Schools
From the very different culture of the Scandinavian countries, Forest
Schools represent a further tradition with relevance for early child-
hood education. Currently, the ideals of the Forest School movement
are having a growing impact on thinking about an outdoor curricu-
lum for young children in the UK (Callaway 2005; Maynard 2007).
Forest Schools represent a significant strand of early childhood
education in Norway, where physical education has a high status
and where there is a strong and shared belief that young children
should experience an active and outdoor childhood. The geography
and climate of Norway help to explain the high value placed on
educating children as confident and skilful citizens in outdoor
environments. A high proportion of Norwegian early childhood
settings offer children of up to 6 years of age extended periods of
outdoor activities, active play and exercise. Many of these children
gain experience of play, exercise and experiential learning within
physically challenging environments and through all seasons of the
year (OECD 1999).
Research in a Norwegian pre-school (Fjortoft 2001) has focused on
the physical outcomes of Forest School experience, suggesting that
challenging physical experiences can impact on the physical fitness
of young children in positive ways. Fjortoft (2001) undertook quasi-
experimental research with groups of 5- to 7-year-olds from three
kindergartens. One kindergarten group enjoyed a wide variety of
physical and creative play experiences and activities for one to two
hours a day in a forest playscape situated at the edge of the kinder-
garten. The forest area included slopes, cliffs, rocks, plains and
woodland vegetation. Children were allowed to play independently
in the forest area closest to the kindergarten. In addition, adults
accompanied them on regular visits further into the forest. In the

other two kindergartens, children enjoyed similar periods of outdoor
play, but in traditional outdoor play areas with standard playground
equipment. Over the year of the study, children in the experimental
group showed gradually improved motor ability in relation to the
other groups, particularly in terms of children’s balance and co-
ordination. It seems that the natural landscape, compared with a
traditional and well-equipped playground, increased opportunities
for physical development.
Children who explored the more challenging forest playscape may
have made further gains in their personal and emotional develop-
ment, for example in self-confidence and a capacity to deal with
risks. However, the Norwegian study (Fjortoft 2001) did not docu-
ment learning of this kind. Concern for the social and emotional
dimension of young children’s experience has been particularly
influential in the development of Forest Schools within the UK.
Maynard (2007, p. 382) notes common British aims to first promote
‘children’s self-esteem, self-confidence and independence skills’, and
second, their sensitivity to and care for the environment. The Bridg-
water Forest School in England and the Danish Forest Schools
inspired Kernow Woodland Learning (Callaway 2005) in Cornwall,
England, where nursery schoolchildren have half-day, weekly visits
to a woodland ‘classroom’, playing outdoors in diverse weather
conditions and through the changing seasons. While teachers plan
games, activities and snack times that support children’s develop-
ment across six broad areas of learning, the project places a particular
emphasis on the development of children’s speaking and listening
skills, alongside their social and emotional development. Formative
records evidence significant behaviour shifts for individual children
over the period of their visits to the woodland: ‘Began quite with-
drawn and not very enthusiastic (‘Is it home time yet?’); later asked
a lot more questions; loved the fire; able to take risks climbing trees’
(Callaway 2005, p. 74).
Callaway (2005) explains how the distinctive practice of the
Scandinavian Forest Schools has relevance for practitioners working
in a very different cultural and environmental context. However,
Maynard (2007), analysing data relating to a Forest School pro-
gramme in South Wales, using a post-structuralism approach, notes
some tensions between the philosophy of the Scandinavian Forest
Schools, as represented by the perspectives of the Forest School
OUTDOOR LEARNING INTERNATIONALLY 119
workers, and the philosophy of the Welsh early-years teachers,

working within a prescribed school curriculum. While the Forest
School workers felt confident to promote the ‘individuality, inde-
pendence and freedom’ (Maynard 2007, p. 388) of children in ways
that might be taken for granted in a Scandinavian context, the Welsh
teachers had other concerns. They were initially worried about the
risks posed by some outdoor activities, seeing the children as in need
of care and protection in a hazardous environment, and they felt
uneasy about their lack of control over curriculum outcomes in the
unfamiliar environment. Some tensions remained, although, over
time, the two teachers gained a new understanding of the Forest
School philosophy and began to see the potential gains for their
children from this approach.
It seems that the distinctive practice of the Scandinavian Forest
Schools has relevance for practitioners working in very different
cultural contexts. To find out more about this approach, images and
an account of the work of the Forest School movement in Suffolk,
England, access http://www.bbc.co.uk/suffolk/content/articles/
2006/03/23/nature_school_feature.shtml.
Growing Schools in England

The Growing Schools initiative represents another important strand
of outdoor education. The tradition of growing vegetables and
flowers with young children reaches back into the first half of the
nineteenth century, with the educational work of Froebel (Herring-
ton 2001). Funded by the British government, Growing Schools sets
out to encourage schools for all age groups to make better use of
outdoor environments for teaching and learning. Specific aims of the
initiative include to increase children’s awareness and understand-
ing of farming and growing, to increase opportunities for first-hand
experience, and to increase children’s understanding of, and respon-
sibility for, the environment (DfES 2002).
A Growing Schools Garden was set up at the Hampton Court
Flower Show in 2002 to provide an inspiring model of a school
garden, with contributions from 21 schools, including several early
childhood settings. The contributions demonstrate how a small and
barren playground can be transformed into a stimulating outdoor
classroom, with imaginative and innovative ideas but with a
minimum of expenditure. Young children and children with special
educational needs were actively involved in the creation of the

different elements of an inspiring garden. These included herbs and
vegetables grown in decorated and recycled containers, bird-feeders
and nest boxes, decorated pots and pans for a musical washing-line,
and a multi-sensory interactive pergola. The Growing Schools initia-
tive demonstrates how children’s active participation in planning,
designing and making a garden is essential if they are to develop a
real sense of responsibility for the environment. It suggests that an
educational garden should be designed as an evolving environment,
with each new cohort of children contributing new ideas.
The Coombes Infants and Nursery School in Reading was one of
the schools that participated in this garden project, and its environ-
mental work, which is at the centre of the school curriculum, exem-
plifies this approach. Every child is involved throughout the year in
the cycle of planting, growing and harvesting, for example, con-
tributing to the school sunflower garden (Clark et al. 2003). Children
are also involved in celebrating many festivals, and these often link
to their work in the garden and wildlife areas. The outdoor environ-
ment is used in imaginative ways to engage children in significant
experience. For example, at the Millennium, children, the staff and
their families joined together for a night-time celebration outdoors
that involved the lighting of 2,000 candles. The Coombes Infants and
Nursery School demonstrates a meaningful link with the philosophy
and practice of Froebel in the way in which it offers young children
significant experiences in the outdoor environment, experiences that
nurture a sense of both community and spirituality.
Images of active outdoor education at the Coombes Infants and
Nursery School can be found at the following URL: http://
www.thecoombes.com/frames.html.
Information about the Growing Schools initiative can be found at
the following URL: http://www.growingschools.org.uk/.
Further Reading
Callaway, G. (2005), The Early Years Curriculum: A View From
Outdoors. London: David Fulton.
DfES (2002), Growing Schools. London: DfES.

Sources of advice,
7 guidance and support
This book has presented many examples of practitioners who

successfully nourish young children’s learning in outdoor environ-
ments. High-quality practice can be found across a wide range of
settings and in very different communities; it can be found in inner-
city schools providing rich play environments in the smallest of
yards, as well as in kindergartens set on the edge of the forest.
Creating outdoor environments for play and learning is challeng-
ing but rewarding. It takes time, and should be planned as a long-
term project that evolves through a number of phases. A wide range
of knowledge and skills underpins successful development work,
and there are significant benefits in involving children, colleagues
and families in the process. Additionally, a number of organizations,
local and national, provide valuable advice, guidance and support.
Some starting points are listed below.
Consulting with children

• Save the Children is an international organization that is
concerned with children’s rights and has particular expertise in
consulting with children. Details of a number of relevant
publications can be accessed at: http://www.savethechildren.
org.uk/.
Developing the outdoor environment

• Learning through Landscapes is a UK charity that undertakes
research, gives advice and encourages action to improve school
and early-years settings’ grounds as environments for learning.
Details of its work and publications can be found at:
www.ltl.org.uk/.
• Groundwork is a British environmental regeneration charity. It
121
supports environmental development work, particularly in the

UK’s most disadvantaged communities. Details about its work
can be accessed at: http://www.groundwork.org.uk/.
• The British Trust for Conservation Volunteers is a British charity
that works with people to bring about positive environmental
change. It offers guidance and practical support to develop
wildlife areas in the grounds of schools and other early-years
settings. Information about the charity can be accessed at:
http://www.btcv.org/.
• Evergreen is a Canadian charity and environmental organization
that has a mandate to bring nature to the city through naturaliz-
ation projects. Information about its work, including work in
school grounds, can be accessed at: http://www.evergreen.ca/.
• The Natural Learning Initiative is an American organization,
based at North Carolina State University. It aims to promote the
importance of the natural environment in children’s daily expe-
rience, through environmental design, action research, education
and dissemination of information. Details of this work can be
accessed at: http://www.naturalearning.org.
• The Edible Schoolyard is a non-profit programme, focused on a
kitchen garden that is located on the campus of Martin Luther
King Junior Middle School in Berkeley, California. The website
provides a number of useful links. It can be accessed at:
http://www.edibleschoolyard.org/about.html.
Developing inclusive outdoor environments

• Sensory Trust is a British charity that offers consultancy and
advice on inclusive designs for outdoor environments. Inform-
ation about the organization and its publications can be accessed
at: http://www.sensorytrust.org.uk/.
• The Waisman Center University of Wisconsin-Madison provides
a wide range of information about its Discovery Garden, an
outdoor learning space for young children. The Discovery
Garden has been developed as an inclusive play space and a
model for early childhood professionals. Information about this
garden and a wide range of inclusive outdoor play spaces can be
accessed at: http://www.waisman.wisc.edu/dg/.
References
Adams, S., Alexander, E., Drummond, M. J. and Moyles, J. (2004), Inside the
Foundation Stage. London: Association of Teachers and Lecturers.
Anning, A. (1997), The First Years at School. Buckingham: Open University.
Anning, A. and Edwards, A. (2006), Promoting Children’s Learning from Birth
to Five, 2nd edn. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University.
Athey, C. (2007), Extending Thought in Young Children. A Parent–Teacher Part-
nership, 2nd edn. London: Paul Chapman.
Aubrey, C., David, T., Godfrey, R. and Thomas, L. (2000), Early Childhood
Educational Research. London and New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Baldock, P. (2001), Regulating Early Years Services. London: David Fulton.
Bilton, H. (2002), Outdoor Play in the Early Years: Management and Innovation,
2nd edn. London: David Fulton.
Bishop, J. (2001), ‘Creating places for living and learning’, in L. Abbott and
C. Nutbrown (eds), Experiencing Reggio Emilia Implications for Pre-school Pro-
vision. Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press, pp. 72–9.
Bishop, K. (2001), ‘Designing sensory play environments for children with
special needs’. Paper presented to the IPA Conference 2001 (online). Last
accessed on 13 August 2003 at http://pracv.asn.au/news.htm.
Boldermann, C., Blennow, M., Dal, H., Martensson, F., Raustorp, A., Yuen, K.
and Wester, U. (2006), ‘Impact of preschool environment on children’s
physical activity and sun exposure’, in Preventive Medicine, 42, pp. 301–8.
Bradford Education (1995), ‘Can I Play Out?’ Outdoor Play in the Early Years.
Bradford: Bradford Education.
Bredecamp, S. (ed.) (1987), Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Child-
hood Programs Serving Children from Birth Through Age 8. Washington, DC:
National Association for the Education of Young Children.
British Medical Journal (BMJ) (2001), ‘Editorials. The obesity epidemic in
young children’, in British Medical Journal, 322, pp. 313–14. Last accessed
on 29 December 2008 at www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/322/7282/313.
Brooker, L. (2005), ‘Learning to be a child. Cultural diversity and early years
ideology’, in N. Yelland (ed.), Critical Issues in Early Childhood Education.
Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University.
Bruce, T. (2005), Early Childhood Education, 3rd edn. London: Hodder Arnold.
Burdette, H. L. and Whitaker, R. C. (2005), ‘Resurrecting free play in young
children’, in Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, 159, pp. 46–50.
Callaway, G. (2005), The Early Years Curriculum: A View from Outdoors.
London: David Fulton.
123
124 REFERENCES
Charlton, M. (2002), ‘Sharing good practice: animal welfare. Hop to it!’,

Nursery World, 30 May 2002.
Clark, A. (2007), ‘View from inside the shed: young children’s perspectives of
the outdoor environment’, in Education 3–13, 35, (4), pp. 349–63.
Clark, A. (2008), Why and How We Listen to Young Children. London: National
Children’s Bureau.
Clark, A. and Moss, P. (2001), Listening to Young Children: The Mosaic Approach.
London: National Children’s Bureau.
Clark, A. and Moss, P. ( 2005), Spaces to Play: More Listening to Young Children
Using the Mosaic Approach. London: National Children’s Bureau.
Clark, A., McQuail, S. and Moss, P. (2003), Exploring the Field of Listening to
and Consulting with Young Children. London: DfES.
Clark, A., Trine Kjørholt, A. and Moss, P. (2005), Beyond Listening: Children's
Perspectives on Early Childhood Services. Bristol: Policy
Connolly, P. (1998), Racism, Gender Identities and Young Children. London and
New York: Routledge.
Connolly, P. (2004), Boys and Schooling in the Early Years. London and New
York: RoutledgeFalmer
Corsaro, W. (2005), The Sociology of Childhood, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks,
California: Pine Forge.
Curtis, D. and Carter, M. (2003), Design for Living and Learning. St Paul, MN:
Red Leaf Press.
Dahlberg, G., Moss, P. and Pence, A. (eds) (2006), Beyond Quality in Early
Childhood Education and Care, 2nd edn. London: Falmer.
Davis, J. M. and Elliot, S. (2004), ‘Mud-pies and daisy chains: Connecting
young children and nature’, in Every Child, 10, (4), pp. 4–5.
DCSF (2008), Practice Guidance for the Early Years Foundation Stage. Notting-
ham: DCSF.
De Hann, D. and Singer, E. (2001), ‘Young children’s language of together-
ness’, in International Journal of Early Years Education, 9, (2), pp. 117–24.
DfEE (1990), Starting With Quality: The Report of the Committee of Enquiry into
the Quality of Educational Experience Offered to 3- and 4-year-olds. London:
HMSO.
DfES (2002), Growing Schools. London: DfES.
DfES (2004), Every Child Matters: Change for Children. London: DfES.
Diana Municipal Pre-school (1990), Diana Hop! Reggio Emilia: ‘Diana’
Municipal Pre-school.
Dickins, M. (2008), Listening to Young Disabled Children. London: National
Children’s Bureau.
Doctoroff, S. (2001), ‘Adapting the physical environment to meet the needs of
all young children for play’, in Early Childhood Education Journal, 29, (2),
pp. 105–9.
Drake, J. (2001), Planning Children’s Play and Learning in the Foundation Stage.
Driscoll, V. and Rudge, C. (2005), ‘Channels for listening to young children
and parents’, in A. Clark, A. T. Kjørholt and P. Moss (eds), Beyond Listen-
ing. Bristol: Policy Press.
REFERENCES 125
Drummond, M. (2000), ‘Comparisons in early years education’ (online), Early

Childhood Research and Practice, 2, (1). Last accessed on 10 February 2003 at
http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v2n1/drummond.html.
Dudek, M. (2000), Kindergarten Architecture: Space for the Imagination, 2nd edn.
London: Spon Press.
Early Childhood Education Forum (1998), Quality in Diversity in the Early
Years. London: National Children’s Bureau.
Early Childhood Mathematics Group (2001), ‘Foundation Stage Mathemat-
ics’, in Mathematics Teaching, 175, pp. 20–2.
Edgington, M. (1998), The Nursery Teacher in Action: Teaching 3, 4 and 5 year
olds. London: Paul Chapman.
Edgington, M. (2002), The Great Outdoors. London: Early Education.
Eisner, E. W. (1996), Cognition and Curriculum Reconsidered, 2nd edn. London:
Paul Chapman.
Elfer, P., Goldschmied, E. and Selleck, D. (2003), Key Persons in the Nursery.
Elliot, L. (1999), Early Intelligence: How the Brain and Mind Develop in the First
Five Years of Life. London: Penguin.
Ellis, N. (2002), Firm Foundations? A Survey of ATL Members Working in the
Foundation Stage. London: Association of Teachers and Lecturers.
Fjortoft (2001), ‘The natural environment as a playground for children: The
impact of outdoor play activities in pre-primary school children’, in Early
Childhood Education Journal, 29, (2), pp. 11–117.
Franklin, B. (2002), The New Handbook of Children’s Rights. London and New
York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group.
Frost, J. L., Wortham, S. C. and Reifel, S. (2008), Play and Child Development,
3rd edn. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Gallahue, D. L. and Ozmun, J. C. (1998), Understanding Motor Development:
Infants, Children, Adolescents and Adults, 4th edn. Boston, MA: McGraw-
Hill.
Gelman, R. and Brenneman, K. (2004), ‘Science learning pathways for young
children’, in Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, pp. 150–8.
Gill, T. (2008), ‘Space-orientated children’s policy: Creating child-friendly
communities to improve children’s well-being’, in Children and Society, 22,
pp. 136–42.
Graham, P. (2008), ‘Susan Isaacs and the Malting House School’, in Journal of
Child Psychotherapy, 34, (1), pp. 5–22.
Great Ormond Street Hospital (2009), Families First for Health: Sun Protection.
Last accessed 16 January 2009 at www.childrenfirst.nhs.uk/families/
az_child_health/s/sun_protection.html.
Harms, T., Clifford, R. and Cryer, D. (1998), Early Childhood Environment
Rating Scale, rev. edn. New York and London: Teachers College Press.
Hart, R. (1979), Children’s Experience of Place. New York: Irvington Publishers.
Henry, J. (2003), ‘Ministers launch new assault on gender gap’, Times Educa-
tional Supplement, 17 January, 16.
Herrington, S. (2001), ‘Kindergarten: Garden pedagogy from Romaticism to
Reform’, in Landscape Journal, 20, (1), pp. 30–4.
126 REFERENCES
Herrington, S. (2005), ‘The sustainable landscape’, in M. Dudek (ed.),

Children’s Spaces. Oxford and Burlington MA 01803: Architectural Press.
Herrington, S. (2006), ‘The design of landscapes at child-care centres: Seven
Cs’, in Landscape Research, 31, 1, pp. 63–82.
Herrington, S. (2008), ‘Perspectives from the ground: Early childhood educa-
tors’ perceptions of outdoor play spaces at child care centers’, in Children,
Youth and Environments, 18, (2), pp. 64–87.
Hestenes, L. and Carroll, D. (2000), ‘The play interactions of young children
with and without disabilities: Individual and environmental influences’,
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, (2), pp. 229–46.
Hughes, S. (1992), Sally’s Secret. London: Red Fox.
Isaacs, S. (1932), The Nursery Years: The Mind of the Child from Birth to Six Years.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Keats, E. J. (1964), Whistle for Willie. London: Bodley Head.
Laevers, F. (2000), ‘Forward to basics! Deep-level-learning and the experien-
tial approach’, in Early Years, 20, (2), pp. 20–9.
Lancaster, P. (2006), ‘Listening to young children: Respecting the voice of the
child’, in G. Pugh and B. Duffy (eds), Contemporary Issues in the Early Years.
London: Sage.
Learning through Landscapes (2003), 10 Years of Learning through Landscapes.
Winchester: LTL,
Liebschner, J. (2001), A Child’s Work Freedom and Guidance in Froebel’s Educa-
tional Theory and Practice. Cambridge: The Lutterworth Press.
Manning-Morton, M. and Thorp, M. (2003), Key Times for Play. Maidenhead,
Maynard, T. (2007), ‘Encounters with Forest School and Foucault: A risky
business?’, in Education 3–13, 35, (4), pp. 379–91.
Maynard, T. and Waters, J. (2007), ‘Learning in the outdoor environment: a
missed opportunity?’, in Early Years, 27, (3), pp. 255–65.
McNaughton, G. (2000), Rethinking Gender in Early Childhood Education.
London: Paul Chapman.
McNaughton, G. and Hughes, P. (2009), Doing Action Research in Early Child-
hood Studies. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University.
McNaughton, G. and Williams, G. (2009), Teaching Young Children: Choices in
Theory and Practice, 2nd edn. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University.
McNeish, D. and Scott, S. (2007), The State of London’s Children Report.
London: Greater London Authority.
Meade, A. (2006) ‘New Zealand: the importance of outdoor space in educa-
tion facilities for young children’, in OECD (ed.), Education Facilities for
Young Children, PEB Exchange, 2 June 2009 at: www.oecd.org/dataoecd/
62/33/37697238.pdf.
Meade, A. and Cubey, P. (2008), Thinking Children: Learning About Schemas.
Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University.
Meade, A. and Ross, F. (2006), ‘Education facilities for young children’, PEB
Exchange, Programme on Educational Building, 2006/5, OECD Publishing.
DOI: 10.1787/407064601310.
Meadows, S. (1993), The Child as Thinker. London and New York: Routledge.
REFERENCES 127
Miller, K. (1989), The Outside Play and Learning Book. Beltsville, Maryland:
Gryphon House.
Millward, A. and Whey, R. (1997), Facilitating Play on Housing Estates.
London: Chartered Institute of Housing and Joseph Rowntree Founda-
tion.
Ministry of Education (1996), Te Whāriki: He Whāriki Mātauranga mō ngā
Mokopuna o Aotearoa: Early Childhood Curriculum. Wellington: Learning
Media.
Mooney, A., Boddy, J., Statham, J. and Warwick, I. (2008), ‘Approaches to
developing health in early years settings’, in Health Education, 108, (2), pp.
163–77.
Morrow, V. (2002), ‘Children’s rights to public space’, in B. Franklin (ed), The
New Handbook of Children’s Rights. London and New York: Routledge/
Taylor and Francis Group, pp. 168–81.
Moss, P. and Haydon, G. (2008), ‘Every Child Matters and the concept of
education’, in Viewpoint, 17, July 2008.
Nabhan, G. (1994a), ‘A child’s sense of wildness’, in G. Nabhan and S.
Trimble (1994), The Geography of Childhood: Why Children Need Wild Places.
Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press, pp. 3–14.
Nabhan, G. (1994b), ‘Children in touch, creatures in story’, in G. Nabhan and
S. Trimble (1994), The Geography of Childhood: Why Children Need Wild
Places. Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press, pp. 77–107.
National Children’s Bureau (2008), Listening to and Consulting Young Children
Project. Last accessed 27 December 2008 at: www.ncb.org.uk/Page.asp?
originx6668cx_211360867683c3p6773783809.
Nind, M. (2001), ‘Enhancing the communication learning environment of an
early years unit’, Education-Line (online). Last accessed on 7 January 2003
at: www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001920.htm.
Norton, C., Nixon, J. and Sibert, J. R. (2004), ‘Playground injuries to children’,
in Archives of Disease in Childhood, 39, pp. 103–8.
OECD (1999), OECD Country Note Early Childhood Education and Care Policy in
Norway (online). Last accessed on 25 February at: www.oecd.org/pdf/
M00020000/M0020292.pdf.
OECD (2006), Starting Strong 2 Early Childhood Education and Care. Paris:
OECD.
Ofsted (2001), Nursery Education: Quality of Provision for 3- and 4-year-olds
2000–2001. London: Ofsted.
Ofsted (2003), The Education of Six-year-olds in England, Denmark and Finland.
London: Ofsted.
Ofsted (2008), Early Years Leading to Excellence (online). Last accessed 27 Decem-
ber 2008 at: www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Leading-to-excellence.
Ojala, M. (2005), ‘How Finland is researching early childhood education’, in
B. Spodek and O. N. Saracho (eds), International Perspectives on Research in
Early Childhood Education. Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age Pub-
lishing.
Ouvry, M. (2000), Exercising Muscles and Minds: Outdoor Play and the Early
Years Curriculum. London: The National Early Years Network.
128 REFERENCES
Parke, R. D. (2004), ‘The Society for Research in Child Development at 70:

Progress and promise’, in Child Development, 75, (1), pp. 1–24.
Pascal, C. and Bertram, T. (1997), Effective Early Learning: Case Studies in
Improvement. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Pascal, C., Bertram, T., Gaspar, M., Mould, C., Ramsden, F. and Saunders, M.
(2001), Research to Inform the Evaluation of the Early Excellence Centres Pilot
Programme. London: DfEE.
Penn, H. (1997), ‘Where do good ideas come from?’, in P. Gura (ed.), Reflec-
tions on Early Education and Care. London: Early Education.
Perry, J. (2001), Outdoor Play: Teaching Strategies with Young Children. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Raban, B., Ure, C. and Waniganayake, M. (2003), ‘Multiple perspectives:
acknowledging the virtue of complexity in measuring quality’, in Early
Years, 23, (1), pp. 67–77.
Rayna, S. (2004), ‘Professional practices with under-ones in French and
Japanese day care centres’, in Early Years, 24, (1), pp. 35–47.
Reggio Children (1995), Le Fontane: The Fountains. Reggio Emilia, Italy:
Reggio Children S. r. l.
Rich, D. (2008), Listening to Babies. London: National Children’s Bureau.
Rishbeth, C. (2004), ‘Ethno-cultural representation in the urban landscape’, in
Journal of Urban Design, 9, (3), pp. 311–33.
Robb, M. (2001), ‘The changing experience of childhood’, in P. Foley, J. Roche
and S. Tucker (eds), Children in Society. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave.
Roche, J. (2002), ‘The Children Act 1989 and children’s rights: a critical
reassessment’, in B. Franklin (ed.), The New Handbook of Children’s Rights.
London and New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group.
Rosen, M. and Oxenbury, H. (1993), We’re Going on a Bear Hunt. London:
Walker Books.
Rushton, S. and Larkin, E. (2001), ‘Shaping the learning environment: Con-
necting developmentally appropriate practices to brain research’, in Early
Childhood Education Journal, 29, (1), pp. 25–33.
Salmon, P., Taggart, B., Smees, R., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford, I.
and Eliot, K. (2003), The Early Years Transition and Special Educational Needs
(EYTSEN) Project. London: DfES.
Sammons, P., Taggart, B., Smees, R., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford,
I. and Eliot, K. (2003), The Early Years Transition and Special Educational
Needs (EYTSEN) Project. Research Report RR431. Nottingham: DCSF.
Schaffer, H. R. (1996), Social Development. Oxford: Blackwell.
Senda, M. (1992), Design of Children’s Play Environments. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Sharp, C. (2003), ‘School starting age: European policy and recent research’,
in Early Education, Spring 2003.
Shell, E. R. (2003), The Hungry Gene: The Science of Fat and the Future of Thin.
New Delhi: Atlantic Books.
Singer, E. (2002), ‘The logic of young children’s (nonverbal) behaviour’, in
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 10, (1), pp. 55–65.
Siraj-Blatchford, J. and Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2003), Supporting Information and
REFERENCES 129
Communication Technology in the Early Years. Buckingham: Open University

Press.
Siraj-Blatchford, I. and Sylva, K. (2004), ‘Researching pedagogy in English
pre-schools’, in British Educational Research Journal, 30, 5, pp. 713–30.
Siraj-Blatchford, I., Sylva, K., Muttock, S., Gilden, R. and Bell, D. (2002),
Researching Effective Pedagogy in the Early Years. London: DfES.
Smith, P. K., Cowie, H. and Blades. M. (2003), Understanding Children’s Devel-
opment, 4th edn. Oxford: Blackwell.
Spodek, B. and Saracho, O. (1996), ‘Culture and the early childhood curricu-
lum’, in Early Child Development and Care, 123, pp. 1–13.
Steedman, C. (1990), Childhood, Culture and Class in Britain: Margaret McMil-
lan, 1860–1931. London: Virago.
Stephenson, A. (2002), ‘Opening up the outdoors: Exploring the relationship
between the indoor and outdoor environments of a centre’, in European
Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 10, (1), pp. 29–38.
Stephenson, A. (2003), ‘Physical risk-taking: Dangerous or endangered?’, in
Early Years, 23, (1), pp. 35–43.
Stoneham, J. (1996), Grounds for Sharing (online). Godalming, Surrey: Learn-
ing Through Landscapes. Book from Education Resources Information
Centre. Last accessed 17 January 2009 at: http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/
data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/16/22/b7.pdf.
Stoneham, J. (1997), ‘Health benefits’, in Landscape Design, February 1997,
pp. 23–6.
Sutton-Smith, B. (1997), The Ambiguity of Play. Cambridge, MA and London:
Harvard University Press.
Sylva, K., Roy, C. and Painter, M. (1980), Childwatching at Playgroup and
Nursery School. London: Grant McIntyre.
Talbot, J. and Frost, J. L. (1989), ‘Magical landscapes’, in Childhood Education,
66, pp. 11–15.
Thomas, N. (2001), ‘Listening to children’, in P. Foley, J. Roche and S. Tucker
(eds), Children in Society. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave.
Thomson, S. (2005), ‘“Territorialising” the primary school playground:
Deconstructing the geography of playtime’, in Children’s Geographies, 3,
(1), pp. 63–78.
Titman, W. (1994), Special Places; Special People: The Hidden Curriculum of
School Grounds. Godalming, Surrey: WWF UK/Learning Through Land-
scapes.
Trimble, S. (1994), ‘The scripture of maps, the names of trees: A child’s land-
scape’, in G. Nabhan and S. Trimble (eds), The Geography of Childhood. Why
Children Need Wild Places. Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press, pp. 15–31.
Waite, S. (2007), ‘“Memories are made of this”: some reflections on outdoor
learning and recall’, in Education 3–13, 35, (4), pp. 333–47.
Wake, S. J. (2007), ‘Designed for learning: Applying “learning-informed
design” for children’s gardens’, in Applied Environmental Education and
Communication, 6, pp. 31–8.
Walsh, D. (2005), ‘Developmental theory and early childhood education’, in
N. Yelland (ed.), Critical Issues in Early Childhood Education. Maidenhead,
130 REFERENCES
Wells, G. (1987), The Meaning Makers: Children Learning Language and Using
Language to Learn. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Welsh Assembly Government (2008), Play/Active Learning. Overview for 3- to
7-year-olds. Cardiff: The National Assembly for Wales.
Welsh Assembly Government (2008), The Foundation Phase Framework for 3- to
7-year-olds in Wales. Cardiff: The National Assembly for Wales.
White, J. (2008), Playing and Learning Outdoors. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Williams, G. M. (1994), ‘Talk on the climbing frame’, in Early Child Develop-
ment and Care, 102, pp. 81–9.
Wood, D., McMahon, L. and Cranstoun, Y. (1980), Working With Under-fives.
London: Grant McIntyre.
Wood, E. (2007), ‘New directions in play: consensus or collision’, in Education
3–13, 35, 4, pp. 309–20.
Wood, E. and Attfield, J. (2005), Play, Learning and the Early Childhood Curricu-
lum, 2nd edn. London: Paul Chapman.
Wood, P. and Yearley, D. (2007), Growing Spaces for Play: The Value of Playing
in the Natural Environment, 2nd edn. Faringdon: Playsafety Ltd.
Woodward, R. J. and Yun, J. (2001), ‘The performance of fundamental gross
motor skills by children enrolled in Head Start’, in Early Child Development
and Care, 169, pp. 57–67.
Woolley, H. (2008), ‘Watch this space: Designing for children’s play in public
open spaces’, in Geography Compass, 2, (20), pp. 495–512.
Index
Action research 9. 43, 122 Evaluation 34, 63, 77, 96, 105
Adult role 23, 25, 27, 39, 59, 106 Every Child Matters 8, 33, 37, 78
Animals 3, 7, 17, 100–2 Experiential education ix, 76–7, 79, 100
Australia 59 Exploratory play 83
Biological concepts 17–18 Families viii, 17, 25, 28, 31–2, 67, 77,
Book corner 90 120, 121
Books 100, 103–4, 108–9 Finland 75
British Trust for Conservation Volun- Forest schools 117–19
teers 122 France x
French 29, 31, 43–4
Froebel ix, 15, 16–19, 119–20
Canadian x, 50, 122
Children's voices 1 Garden ix, xi, 2, 3, 13–19, 22, 27, 30, 32,
City 7, 25, 36, 50, 100, 103, 116, 121, 34–5, 42, 47, 49–50, 53, 55–6, 61–2,
122 67, 76, 80–1, 83–6, 90, 98–101, 106,
Climbing 3, 9, 16, 25, 56, 69, 71, 89, 118 115–16, 119–20, 122
Collections 33–4 Gender 10–11, 36–9, 56–60, 71
Conflict 43–6, 60, 81, 104 Geographical perspectives 5, 33
Construction 9, 26, 51, 53, 56, 88, 89, Growing Schools 119–20
92–7
Creative 10, 14, 55, 62, 78, 89, 98, 117 Health x–xi, 7–9, 15, 17–18, 24, 30, 33,
Critical theory 31–2 50–1, 68, 77, 79, 101
Cross-cultural studies 57–8 Health and safety 24, 68
Denmark x ICT 98–9

Dens 51–2, 98, 100–1 Inclusive 39, 122
Disabled children 61–4, 71 Inclusion 60–4
India 11
Elementary school tradition 13–14, 16, Infants 11, 28, 83
24 Isaacs, Susan 17–19
Emotional well-being 8, 17, 18, 33, 41– Italy 115–16
3, 76–7, 78, 115, 118–19
England x, xi, 1, 8, 10, 16, 31, 33, 37, Japan 11, 15, 29–31, 44, 69, 115
54, 76, 78–81, 93, 115
Environmental change 8, 122 Kenya 11
Environmental understanding 7 Kindergarten 15, 19, 64, 67, 81, 85,
Environmental responsibility 7, 34, 76 117–18, 121
Europe 14–15, 17
131
132 INDEX
Language 9, 11, 16, 22, 26, 30, 60, 66, Racism 36

67, 78, 80–1, 97 Reggio Emilia ix, 81, 116–17
Learning dispositions 11, 93 Rights 1, 65
Learning through Landscapes 121 Roadway 90
Listening to children 64–7 Role play 89
McMillan, Margaret ix, 16–17, 19 Save the Children 121

Mental health 15 Scale 10, 55, 90–1
Memories 2–4 Scaffolding 29–30, 48
Messy play 39, 54–6 Schema 25–6, 38
Mexico 11 Scientific concepts 27, 48
Monitoring 96–8 Scotland 16
Montessori, Maria ix Sensory experiences 5, 6, 10, 16, 62
Mosaic approach 6 Sensory Trust 122
Music 89 Shelter 16
Small apparatus 89
Natural landscape 83 Social experiences 5
Natural materials 9, 88 Sociological perspectives 35–7
Natural world 6–7, 48, 115 Social spaces 6
Netherlands 76 Social play 36
New Zealand 11, 34, 76–8 Special educational needs 60–3
Norway x, 115, 117–18 Spiritual 15–18
Number 90 Sustained shared thinking 30, 73
Nursery school 16 Sweden x
Observation 92, 97, 104 The Edible Schoolyard 122

Organisation for Economic Co-opera- The Natural Learning Initiative 122
tion and Development (OECD) x The Waisman Centree 122
Therapeutic 15
Parents 3, 16, 29, 31 Transporting schema 9
Pathways 84–5
Peer cultures 35–7, 55 United States ix, 7, 8, 11, 14, 16, 27, 34,
Percussion instruments 10 81, 85
Personal spaces 6
Philippines 11 Vegetable garden 17
Physical challenge 39, 68–71
Physically active play 8, 11 Wales ix, xi, 74, 81
Physical play area 89 Water play 86–7
Physical fitness 117 Weather 39, 46–54, 106
Piaget 24–8 Well-being 7
Planning 71–113 Wildflower gardens 16
Plants 85 Wild area 85–6
Playgrounds 14 Wild places 33
Playtimes 13 Wildlife 62, 85
Playwork perspectives 37–8
Profile 103–4 Zoning 84
Programme structure 39–43
Psychological development 16
Psychological perspectives 22–33, 57–8

Playing Outdoors in The Early Years, 2nd Edition (PDFDrive)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Playing Outdoors in The Early Years, 2nd Edition (PDFDrive)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Playing Outdoors in The Early Years, 2nd Edition (PDFDrive)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Playing Outdoors in the Early Years

Also available from Continuum

Learning Through Play, Jacqueline Duncan and Madelaine

1 A rationale for outdoor play in early childhood

2 The place of the garden in the historical development of

3 Perspectives on young children and outdoor play 21

4 Outdoor play decisions 39

5 Planning an outdoor curriculum in the early years 73

Curriculum frameworks internationally 75

6 Outdoor learning in early-years curricula internationally 115

The Villetta pre-school in Reggio Emilia 116

Sources of advice, guidance and support 121

I would like to thank those I have worked with in schools, early-

The pioneers of early childhood education, including Froebel,

Assembly Government 2008), differences in levels of provision may

and Waters (2007, p. 262), reporting on the reluctance of a group of

We need to be full of wonder at what children say and do, and

Can you remember?

a • What people can you remember?

A group of undergraduate students on an Early Childhood Studies

beyond the controlling gaze of adults. These recollections of wild

Illustration 1.1: Art work

important to reflect on remembered outdoor experiences and the

What are children’s views?

settings, Clark and Moss (2001, 2005) have developed a methodolog-

. . . an increasingly large proportion of inner-city children will

Davis and Elliot (2004) argue that the disappearance of opportuni-

across social classes to participate in outdoor play and activities.

construction play, can build confidence, self-esteem and positive

An environment for all kinds of learning

quality of outdoor environments, suggesting that the outdoors

It is useful to consider the evidence for early behavioural differ-

Waite, S. (2007), ‘‘‘Memories are made of this”: some reflections on

some 4-year-olds. A seminal study by Titman (1994) highlighted how

In contrast, from the early nineteenth century onwards, a tradition of

and political ideas about childhood, in particular working-class

Susan Isaacs’ writings evidence the ways in which children’s

The historical tradition of play

Dudek, M. (2000), Kindergarten Architecture: Space for the Imagi-

Outdoor play settings may be the one place where children

Introducing discussion of the concept of play, Sutton-Smith (1997,

The intersecting and rich perspectives of sociology and geography

The growing and maturing child

ations for practice, the maturational perspective suggests a mainly

The pre-school child

The child explorer

cognitive development (Parke 2004). His observations of his own

. . . project observations consisted of children either putting

steps and ladders, by crawling through, by levering themselves

At this early stage of development, adults support children by main-

A nursery garden provides a valuable context for such experience as

other researchers, they have challenged Piaget‘s focus on the child as

An active partner in learning

cant achievement of active participation in such games. ‘Intention-

to scaffold learning for the under-1s through adult–child interac-

children as isolated beings, critical theory recognizes children as

ularly members from cultures where eating outdoors is customary.

Trimble (1994, p. 24), reflecting on his own childhood, remembers the

experience of nature has been linked to what is termed ‘environmen-