Search Advanced

AIMS Public Health

2019, Volume 6, Issue 4: 461-476. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2019.4.461
Previous Article Next Article
Research article

Educator perceptions on the benefits and challenges of loose parts play in the outdoor environments of childcare centres

  • 1.
    School of Health & Human Performance, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada
  • 2.
    Faculty of Education and Department of Child and Youth Study, Mount Saint Vincent University, Halifax, Canada
  • 3.
    Healthy Populations Institute, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada
  • Received: 31 July 2019 Accepted: 21 October 2019 Published: 29 October 2019

  • It is important to consider physical activity and movement in early life to ensure children establish and maintain healthy physical activity patterns. Recent evidence has highlighted the importance of outdoor play and the childcare environment. Active outdoor play, especially free play, supports independence, self-regulation and allows children to explore their world and make decisions. Loose parts or open-ended materials are natural or synthetic resources that can be used in more than one way, allowing children to experiment through play. Incorporating loose parts into play environments creates opportunity for new play experiences. Despite growing evidence supporting loose parts play, the perspectives of childcare providers on the benefits and challenges of this type of play have been overlooked. The purpose of this study was to identify the benefits and challenges of incorporating loose parts play into the outdoor environments of childcare centres, from the perspectives of educators who took part in the Physical Literacy in the Early Years (PLEY) project. PLEY is a larger, mixed methods intervention study with the goal of evaluating a loose parts intervention in early childcare settings. This portion of the project used qualitative description to explore educators’ perspectives. Data were collected using focus groups (n = 15) with early childhood educators (n = 3–5 in each group). Thematic analysis was used to identify five themes relating to benefits, and four themes relating to challenges. Benefit themes included: loose parts enable children to take risks; loose parts spark creativity and imagination; loose parts contribute to problem-solving abilities; loose parts cultivate independence and confidence; and loose parts build relationships and leadership. Challenges included: apprehension of loose parts; loose parts as a novelty; sustainability of loose parts; and loose parts present challenges with storage. Overall, we found educators perceived outdoor loose parts play to have multiple social and cognitive benefits for preschool-aged children that are critical for optimal growth and development, and overall health and wellness.

    Citation: Rebecca A Spencer, Nila Joshi, Karina Branje, Jessie-Lee D. McIsaac, Jane Cawley, Laurene Rehman, Sara FL Kirk, Michelle Stone. Educator perceptions on the benefits and challenges of loose parts play in the outdoor environments of childcare centres[J]. AIMS Public Health, 2019, 6(4): 461-476. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2019.4.461

    Related Papers:

  • It is important to consider physical activity and movement in early life to ensure children establish and maintain healthy physical activity patterns. Recent evidence has highlighted the importance of outdoor play and the childcare environment. Active outdoor play, especially free play, supports independence, self-regulation and allows children to explore their world and make decisions. Loose parts or open-ended materials are natural or synthetic resources that can be used in more than one way, allowing children to experiment through play. Incorporating loose parts into play environments creates opportunity for new play experiences. Despite growing evidence supporting loose parts play, the perspectives of childcare providers on the benefits and challenges of this type of play have been overlooked. The purpose of this study was to identify the benefits and challenges of incorporating loose parts play into the outdoor environments of childcare centres, from the perspectives of educators who took part in the Physical Literacy in the Early Years (PLEY) project. PLEY is a larger, mixed methods intervention study with the goal of evaluating a loose parts intervention in early childcare settings. This portion of the project used qualitative description to explore educators’ perspectives. Data were collected using focus groups (n = 15) with early childhood educators (n = 3–5 in each group). Thematic analysis was used to identify five themes relating to benefits, and four themes relating to challenges. Benefit themes included: loose parts enable children to take risks; loose parts spark creativity and imagination; loose parts contribute to problem-solving abilities; loose parts cultivate independence and confidence; and loose parts build relationships and leadership. Challenges included: apprehension of loose parts; loose parts as a novelty; sustainability of loose parts; and loose parts present challenges with storage. Overall, we found educators perceived outdoor loose parts play to have multiple social and cognitive benefits for preschool-aged children that are critical for optimal growth and development, and overall health and wellness.


    加载中

    Acknowledgments


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

    Conflict of interest


    All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.

    [1] Carson V, Lee EY, Hewitt L, et al. (2017) Systematic review of the relationships between physical activity and health indicators in the early years (0–4years). BMC Public Health 17: 33–63. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3962-4
    [2] LeBlanc AG, Spence JC, Carson V, et al. (2012) Systematic review of sedentary behaviour and health indicators in the early years (aged 0–4 years). Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 37: 753–772. doi: 10.1139/h2012-063
    [3] Poitras VJ, Gray CE, Janssen X, et al. (2017) Systematic review of the relationships between sedentary behaviour and health indicators in the early years (0–4 years). BMC Public Health 17: 65–89. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3943-7
    [4] Biddle SJH, Pearson N, Ross GM, et al. (2010) Tracking of sedentary behaviours of young people: a systematic review. Prev Med 51: 345–351. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2010.07.018
    [5] Tremblay MS, Chaput JP, Adamo KB, et al. (2017) Canadian 24-hour movement guidelines for the early years (0–4 years): An integration of physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and sleep. BMC Public Health 17: 1–32. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3954-4
    [6] Tremblay MS, Carson V, Chaput JP, et al. (2016) Canadian 24-hour movement guidelines for children and youth: An integration of physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and sleep. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 41: S311–S327. doi: 10.1139/apnm-2016-0151
    [7] Kuzik N, Poitras VJ, Tremblay MS, et al. (2017) Systematic review of the relationships between combinations of movement behaviours and health indicators in the early years (0–4 years). BMC Public Health 17: 109–122. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4042-0
    [8] Chaput JP, Colley RC, Aubert S, et al. (2017) Proportion of preschool-aged children meeting the Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines and associations with adiposity: Results from the Canadian Health Measures Survey. BMC Public Health 17: 147–154. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4053-x
    [9] Roberts KC, Yao X, Carson V, et al. (2017) Meeting the Canadian 24-hour movement guidelines for children and youth. Health Rep 28: 3–7.
    [10] Hesketh KR, O'Malley C, Paes VM, et al. (2017) Determinants of change in physical activity in children 0–6 years of age: A systematic review of quantitative literature. Sports Med 47: 1349–1374. doi: 10.1007/s40279-016-0656-0
    [11] Lindsay AC, Greaney ML, Wallington SF, et al. (2017) A review of early influences on physical activity and sedentary behaviors of preschool-age children in high-income countries. J Spec Pediatr Nurs 22: 1–15.
    [12] Hesketh KR, Lakshman R, van Sluijs EMF (2017) Barriers and facilitators to young children's physical activity and sedentary behaviour: A systematic review and synthesis of qualitative literature. Obes Rev 18: 987–1017. doi: 10.1111/obr.12562
    [13] Gray C, Gibbons R, Larouche R, et al. (2015) What is the relationship between outdoor time and physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and physical fitness in children? A systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 12: 6455–6474. doi: 10.3390/ijerph120606455
    [14] Tremblay MS, Gray C, Babcock S, et al. (2015) Position statement on active outdoor play. Int J Environ Res Public Health 12: 6475–6505. doi: 10.3390/ijerph120606475
    [15] Statistics Canada (2019) Survey on Early Learning and Child Care Arrangements, Canada. Available from: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/190410/dq190410a-eng.htm.
    [16] Bower JK, Hales DP, Tate DF, et al. (2008) The childcare environment and children's physical activity. Am J Prev Med 34: 23–29. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2007.09.022
    [17] Wyver S (2019) The Influence of Outdoor Play on Social and Cognitive Development. Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development. Available from: http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/sites/default/files/textes-experts/en/5223/the-influence-of-outdoor-play-on-social-and-cognitive-development.pdf.
    [18] Bingham DD, Costa S, Hinkley T, et al. (2016) Physical activity during the early years: A systematic review of correlates and determinants. Am J Prev Med 51: 384–402. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.04.022
    [19] Truelove S, Bruijns BA, Vanderloo LM, et al. (2018) Physical activity and sedentary time during childcare outdoor play sessions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev Med 108: 74–85. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.12.022
    [20] Aras S (2016) Free play in early childhood education: A phenomenological study. Early Child Dev Care 186: 1173–1184. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2015.1083558
    [21] Brussoni M, Olsen LL, Pike I, et al. (2012) Risky play and children's safety: Balancing priorities for optimal child development. Int J Environ Res Public Health 9: 3134–3148. doi: 10.3390/ijerph9093134
    [22] Houser NE, Roach L, Stone MR, et al. (2016) Let the children play: Scoping review on the implementation and use of loose parts for promoting physical activity participation. AIMS Public Health 3: 781–799. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2016.4.781
    [23] Johnson JE, Christie JF, Wardle F (2005) Play, development, and early education. Pearson//Allyn and Bacon.
    [24] Gibson JL, Cornell M, Gill T (2017) A systematic review of research into the impact of loose parts play on children's cognitive, social and emotional development. Sch Ment Health 9: 295–309. doi: 10.1007/s12310-017-9220-9
    [25] Pellis SM, Pellis VC (2007) Rough-and-tumble play and the development of the social brain. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 16: 95–98. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00483.x
    [26] Veitch J, Bagley S, Ball K, et al. (2006) Where do children usually play? A qualitative study of parents' perceptions of influences on children's active free-play. Health Place 12: 383–393.
    [27] Nicholson S (1971) How not to cheat children: The theory of loose parts. Landscape Archit 62: 30–34.
    [28] Änggård E (2011) Children's gendered and non-gendered play in natural spaces. Child Youth Environ 21: 5–33.
    [29] Casey T, Robertson J (2016) Loose Parts Play: A toolkit. Inspiring Scotland, Edinburgh. Available from: https://www.inspiringscotland.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Loose-Parts-Play-web.pdf.
    [30] Flannigan C, Dietze B (2017) Children, outdoor play, and loose parts. J Child Stud 42: 53–60. doi: 10.18357/jcs.v42i3.17894
    [31] McGonigle H, Bowman-Kruhm M (2001) Think outside the sandbox: Creating natural backyard play space. Nat Life Mag 14–17.
    [32] Neill P (2013) Open-Ended Materials Belong Outside Too! High Scope 27: 1–18.
    [33] Oncu EC, Profile S, Elif A, et al. (2016) Preschoolers' usage of unstructured materials as play materials divergently. Educ J 4: 9–14.
    [34] Sutton MJ (2011) In the Hand and Mind: The intersection of loose parts and imagination in evocative settings for young children. Child Youth Environ 21: 408–424.
    [35] Gehris JS, Gooze RA, Whitaker RC (2015) Teachers' perceptions about children's movement and learning in early childhood education programmes. Child Care Health Dev 41: 122–131. doi: 10.1111/cch.12136
    [36] Schlembach S, Kochanowski L, Douglas BR, et al. (2018) Early childhood educators' perceptions of play and inquiry on a nature playscape. Child Youth Environ 28: 82–101. doi: 10.7721/chilyoutenvi.28.2.0082
    [37] Houser NE, Cawley J, Kolen AM, et al. (2019) A loose parts randomized controlled trial to promote active outdoor play in preschool-aged children: Physical Literacy in the Early Years (PLEY) project. Methods Protoc 2: 27. doi: 10.3390/mps2020027
    [38] Neergaard MA, Olesen F, Andersen RS, et al. (2009) Qualitative description-the poor cousin of health research? BMC Med Res Methodol 9: 52. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-9-52
    [39] Sandelowski M (2000) Whatever happened to qualitative description? Res Nurs Health 23: 334–340. doi: 10.1002/1098-240X(200008)23:4<334::AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-G
    [40] Austin G, Bell T, Caperchione C, et al. (2011) Translating research to practice: using the RE-AIM framework to examine an evidence-based physical activity intervention in primary school settings. Health Promot Pract 12: 932–941. doi: 10.1177/1524839910366101
    [41] McLeroy KR, Bibeau D, Steckler A, et al. (1988) An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educ Q 15: 351–377. doi: 10.1177/109019818801500401
    [42] Patton MQ (2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3Eds., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
    [43] Miles MB, Huberman AM, Huberman MA, et al. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An expanded sourcebook, 2Eds., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
    [44] Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3: 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
    [45] Morrow SL (2005) Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. J Couns Psychol 52: 250–260. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.250
    [46] Milne J, Oberle K (2005) Enhancing rigor in qualitative description: a case study. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs 32: 413–420. doi: 10.1097/00152192-200511000-00014
    [47] Nikiforidou Z (2017) 'It is riskier': preschoolers' reasoning of risky situations. Eur Early Child Edu Res J 25: 612–623. doi: 10.1080/1350293X.2017.1331075
    [48] Brussoni M, Gibbons R, Gray C, et al. (2015) What is the relationship between risky outdoor play and health in children? A systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 12: 6423–6454. doi: 10.3390/ijerph120606423
    [49] Farmer VL, Williams SM, Mann JI, et al. (2017) Change of school playground environment on bullying: A randomized controlled trial. Pediatr 139: e20163072. doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-3072
  • publichealth-06-04-461-s001.pdf
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2019 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索
AIMS Public Health
3.1 4.8

Metrics

Article views(10320) PDF downloads(2077) Cited by(12)

Preview PDF
Download XML
Export Citation
Article outline

Other Articles By Authors

Related pages

Tools

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog