Barriers To Unstructured Outdoor Play In Early Childhood Education: An Ecological Perspective

The ecological systems theory, as applied in this research, provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the challenges early childhood educators face in promoting unstructured outdoor play.

It illustrates how various interconnected environmental layers influence educators’ practices:

1. Microsystem: Educators’ personal knowledge and attitudes about outdoor play
2. Mesosystem: Interactions between educators, parents, colleagues, and licensing officers
3. Exosystem: Licensing regulations and organizational policies
4. Macrosystem: Broader societal attitudes towards risk and outdoor play

This approach highlights that barriers to unstructured outdoor play exist at multiple levels, from individual perceptions to societal norms, emphasizing the need for multi-faceted interventions to effectively promote outdoor play in early childhood education settings.

Cheng, T., Brussoni, M., Han, C., Munday, F., & Zeni, M. (2023). Perceived challenges of early childhood educators in promoting unstructured outdoor play: an ecological systems perspective. Early Years, 43(4-5), 904-920. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2022.2034140

Key Points

1. The primary challenges for early childhood educators in promoting unstructured outdoor play (UOP) include varying interpretations of licensing regulations, lack of communication between stakeholders, and educators’ personal perceptions of risk.
2. Factors like cultural background, personal experiences, and professional training significantly affect educators’ willingness to support UOP.
3. The research, while enlightening, has limitations such as being conducted in a metropolitan area with a moderate climate and having an all-female participant group.
4. Understanding and addressing barriers to UOP in early childhood education is universally relevant due to its importance for children’s healthy development and long-term outcomes.

Rationale

Unstructured outdoor play (UOP) has been recognized for its beneficial impacts on children’s healthy development, including improved physical, mental, and emotional health (Bento & Dias, 2017; Tremblay et al., 2015).

However, opportunities for children to engage in meaningful play are limited due to various factors such as increased screen time and societal concern for child safety (Brussoni et al., 2015; Little & Wyver, 2008; Ginsburg, 2017).

Early learning and childcare centers (ELCCs) can be essential settings for UOP, with educators playing a vital role in supporting children’s opportunities. However, educators face numerous barriers in promoting UOP.

This study aims to examine the experiences and perceived challenges of early childhood education professionals in promoting children’s UOP, addressing a gap in understanding these barriers from an ecological systems perspective.

Method

The study employed a qualitative approach using focus groups.

Five focus groups were conducted with 40 professionals working in the early childhood education field in British Columbia, Canada.

Participants included educators, students, and licensing officers. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using thematic analysis following Braun et al.’s (2018) guide.

The ecological systems theory was used as a framework to consider the data, helping to understand, predict, and change social behaviors through consideration of various systems that individuals interact with and that shape their behavior.

Sample

The participants were 40 female professionals working in the early childhood education field in British Columbia, Canada.

The sample included educators, ELCC administrators, students, faculty members in ECE training programs, and licensing officers.

Many participants held multiple roles and had been working in the ECE field for more than 20 years.

Results

The study identified challenges at each level of the ecological system:

Microsystem

Educators’ perceptions of UOP and its associated risks varied, influencing their willingness to support it.

Some saw children as having limited abilities to undertake risk management, while others believed children naturally navigated risk through UOP.

“Because we all have different levels of what’s acceptable. Um, we trust the staff who’s making that decision at that moment. She’s willing to take that risk. So we support…” [FG106 educator]

Mesosystem

Relationships with various stakeholders, including children, parents, colleagues, and licensing officers, influenced educators’ promotion of UOP.

“Some parents, particularly, believe, if they’ve grown up differently than, like, I have, in a different country, sometimes they believe that children will get sick if they’re outside in poor weather.” [FG105 educator, administrator]

Exosystem

Varying interpretations of licensing regulations posed challenges.

“Like a covered patio or something like that. And so there’s, you know, it’s enclosed on all sides but one. And is that outdoor space? Or maybe it’s even enclosed on all the sides but there’s like, skylights.” [FG503 LO]

Macrosystem

Societal risk aversion and cultural differences influenced perceptions of acceptable risk levels in UOP.

Insight and Depth

This study is particularly informative as it examines the challenges of promoting UOP from an ecological systems perspective, providing a comprehensive understanding of the complex interplay between various factors influencing educators’ ability to support UOP.

The research highlights the importance of addressing barriers at multiple levels to effectively promote UOP in early childhood education settings.

Strengths

This study had several methodological strengths, including:

1. The study employed a diverse sample of professionals in the ECE field, including educators, students, and licensing officers.
2. The use of focus groups allowed for rich, in-depth discussions and exploration of shared experiences.
3. The application of ecological systems theory provided a comprehensive framework for understanding the challenges faced by educators.
4. The study offers practical recommendations for addressing identified barriers at each ecological system level.

Limitations

This study also had several methodological limitations, including:

1. The study was conducted in a metropolitan area with a moderate climate, potentially limiting its relevance to rural or extreme climate settings.
2. All participants were female, reflecting the gender imbalance in the ECE field but limiting perspectives from male educators.
3. Focus groups were conducted in English, potentially excluding participants more comfortable in other languages.
4. The study did not explicitly incorporate Indigenous perspectives on outdoor play and child-nature relationships.

Implications

The results have significant implications for improving UOP opportunities in early childhood education:

1. There is a need for high-quality UOP training within post-secondary institutions and ongoing professional development for educators.
2. Improved communication between stakeholders (educators, parents, colleagues, and licensing officers) is crucial for developing a unified understanding of UOP and its benefits.
3. Licensing regulations may need to be revised or clarified to better support UOP, potentially including the adoption of a risk-benefit assessment approach.
4. Elevating the social status and working conditions of early childhood educators may contribute to improved UOP provision.

Conclusion

Understanding and addressing the challenges faced by early childhood educators in promoting UOP is crucial for supporting children’s healthy development and long-term outcomes.

This study highlights the complex interplay of factors at various ecological system levels that influence educators’ ability to promote UOP.

Further research is needed to explore these challenges in diverse geographical and cultural contexts, and to develop and evaluate interventions addressing barriers at multiple ecological system levels.

The topic of UOP in early childhood education is complex and sensitive, involving considerations of child safety, educational philosophy, and cultural values.

Continued dialogue and research in this area are essential for developing best practices that support children’s right to play and healthy development.

References

Primary reference

Cheng, T., Brussoni, M., Han, C., Munday, F., & Zeni, M. (2023). Perceived challenges of early childhood educators in promoting unstructured outdoor play: an ecological systems perspective. Early Years, 43(4-5), 904-920. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2022.2034140

Other references

Bento, G., & Dias, G. (2017). The importance of outdoor play for young children’s healthy development. Porto biomedical journal, 2(5), 157-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbj.2017.03.003

Braun, V., Clarke, V., Hayfield, N., & Terry, G. (2018). Thematic analysis. In P. Liamputtong (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in health social sciences (pp. 1-18). Springer Nature.

Brussoni, M., Gibbons, R., Gray, C., Ishikawa, T., Sandseter, E. B. H., Bienenstock, A., … & Tremblay, M. S. (2015). What is the relationship between risky outdoor play and health in children? A systematic review. International journal of environmental research and public health, 12(6), 6423-6454. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120606423

Ginsburg, K. R. 2017. “The Importance of Play in Promoting Healthy Child Development and Maintaining Strong Parent-child Bonds.” Pediatrics 119 (1): 182–191. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-2697.

Little, H., & Wyver, S. (2008). Outdoor play: Does avoiding the risks reduce the benefits?. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 33(2), 33-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/183693910803300206

Tremblay, M. S., Gray, C., Babcock, S., Barnes, J., Bradstreet, C. C., Carr, D., … & Brussoni, M. (2015). Position statement on active outdoor play. International journal of environmental research and public health, 12(6), 6475-6505. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120606475

Keep learning

Suggested Socratic questions for a college class to discuss this paper:

1. How might cultural differences in risk perception influence the implementation of unstructured outdoor play in early childhood education settings?
2. In what ways could the gender imbalance in the early childhood education workforce affect approaches to unstructured outdoor play?
3. How might the challenges identified in this study differ in rural or extreme climate settings?
4. What are the potential long-term consequences of limiting children’s access to unstructured outdoor play in early childhood?
5. How can we balance safety concerns with the developmental benefits of risky play in early childhood education?
6. What role should government policies play in promoting unstructured outdoor play in early childhood education settings?
7. How might the professionalization and improved status of early childhood educators impact the provision of unstructured outdoor play?
8. In what ways could technology be leveraged to support unstructured outdoor play in early childhood education?
9. How might the challenges and approaches to unstructured outdoor play differ in Indigenous early childhood education settings?
10. What ethical considerations arise when implementing risk-benefit assessments in early childhood education settings?