European Early Childhood Education Research Journal

Vol. 18, No. 4, December 2010, 473–483

What’s so interesting outside? A study of child-initiated interaction

with teachers in the natural outdoor environment1
Jane Watersa* and Trisha Maynardb
a
School of Human and Health Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea, Wales; bCentre for
Research into Children, Families and Communities, Canterbury Christ Church University,
Canterbury, England
European
10.1080/1350293X.2010.525939
RECR_A_525939.sgm
1350-293X
Original
Taylor
402010
18
[Link]@[Link]
JaneWaters
000002010
&
and
Article
Francis
Early
Francis
(print)/1752-1807
Childhood Education
(online)Research Journal

ABSTRACT: The research question addressed in this paper is: What specific
elements in the outdoor environment draw children’s attention? The new approach
to Welsh early years education – the Foundation Phase: Framework for children
aged 3–7 years in Wales (DCELLS 2008) – requires the inclusion of both teacher-
led and child-initiated activities and emphasises the use of outdoor environments
for learning and the need to build experience around what interests the child. This
paper addresses a gap in the literature pertaining to how an environment can
stimulate children’s interest and what children choose to talk to their teachers about.
Set in a large inner city primary school in South Wales, the research involved audio-
visual data collection, transcription and grounded theory analysis. The findings
suggest that a natural outdoor space populated with varied and flexible elements,
and in particular multiple loose parts, can provide opportunities for teachers to
respond to child-initiated interaction and build on children’s interests. This is
especially pertinent in Foundation Phase settings in Wales at the current time.

RÉSUMÉ: La question de recherche de cet article est: Quels éléments spécifiques

dans l’environnement extérieur attirent l’attention des enfants ? Au Pays de
Galles, la nouvelle approche de l’éducation préscolaire – the Foundation Phase:
Framework for children aged 3–7 years in Wales (DCELLS 2008) – exige à la fois
des activités menées par l’enseignant et des activités initiées par l’enfant, et insiste
sur l’utilisation d’environnements extérieurs pour l’apprentissage et sur le besoin
de construire l’expérience autour de ce qui intéresse les enfants. Cet article comble
une lacune dans la littérature en montrant combien l’environnement peut stimuler
l’intérêt des enfants et ce que les enfants choisissent d’en dire à leurs enseignants.
Menée dans une grande école primaire urbaine du Sud du Pays de Galles, la
recherche comprend la collecte de données audiovisuelles, leur transcription et
leur analyse avec le recours à la grounded theory. Les résultats suggèrent qu’un
espace extérieur naturel comprenant des éléments variés, et notamment de
multiples espaces perdus, fournissent des opportunités aux enseignants pour
répondre aux interactions initiées par l’enfant et s’appuyer sur ses intérêts. Ceci est
particulièrement pertinent dans les structures concernées par la Foundation Phase
au Pays de Galles en ce moment.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG: Die Forschungsfrage dieses Aufsatzes ist, welche

spezifischen Elemente in der Außenumgebung Aufmerksamkeit auf sich ziehen.
Der neue Ansatz der walisischen Frühpädagogik – die Anfangsphase (‘Foundation
Phase’), d.h. Rahmenbedingungen für Kinder im Alter von drei bis sieben Jahren
in Wales (DCELLS 2008) – erfordert den Einschluss von sowohl Lehrer

*Corresponding author. Email: [Link]@[Link]

ISSN 1350-293X print/ISSN 1752-1807 online

© 2010 EECERA
DOI: 10.1080/1350293X.2010.525939
[Link]
474 J. Waters and T. Maynard

gesteuerten als auch Kind initiierten Aktivitäten. Dieser Ansatz betont auch den
Gebrauch des Außenumgebung für das Lernen und die Wichtigkeit, Erfahrungen
zu sammeln, die sich nach den Interessen des Kindes richten. Dieser Aufsatz
schließt eine Lücke in der Literatur in Bezug darauf, wie die Umgebung das
Interesse eines Kindes stimulieren kann und worüber Kinder mit ihren Lehrern
reden möchten. Die Untersuchung wurde in einer großen, innerstädtischen
Grundschule in Südwales durchgeführt und beinhaltete audio-visuelle
Datenerhebung, Transkription und fundierte theoretische Analysen. Die Befunde
deuten darauf hin, dass eine natürliche, Außenumgebung, die abwechslungsreiche
und bewegliche Elemente enthält, Lehrern die Möglichkeit bietet, auf Kind
initiierte Interaktion einzugehen und auf den Interessen der Kinder aufzubauen.
Dies ist zur Zeit besonders in Einrichtungen der Anfangsphase (‘Foundation
Phase’) in Wales besonders relevant.

RESUMEN: La pregunta estudiada en éste artículo es: Qué elementos específicos

del ambiente al aire libre llama la atención de los niños? La nueva política galesa
de educación preescolar – the Foundation Phase: Framework for children aged 3–
7 years in Wales (DCELLS 2008) – requiere la inclusión tanto de actividades
dirigidas por los maestros como de actividades iniciadas por los niños, y enfatíza
el uso de ambientes al aire libre para el aprendizaje y la necesidad de hacer
experiencias en torno a lo que le interesa a los niños. Este artículo intenta llenar
un vacío en la literatura relacionado con como el ambiente puede estimular los
interéses de los alumnos y lo que los alumnos elijen hablar con sus profesores.
Estudiando una escuela primaria, grande y del centro de la ciudad, en el sur galés,
la investigación involucra recolección de información audio-visual,
transcripciones y análisis de ‘grounded theory’. Los hallazgos sugieren que un
ambiente exterior natural poblado con elementos flexibles y variables, puede dar
a los maestros posibilidades de responder a las interacciones iniciadas por los
niños y de basarse en los intereses de los niños. Esto es especialmente pertinente
en el marco acutal de la Foundation Phase de Gales.
Keywords: child-initiated interaction; outdoor play and learning; Foundation
Phase; affordance

Introduction
In relation to young children, research and related literature in the UK concerning
teacher–child talk has recently focussed on the value of ‘effective’ interaction (for
example ‘sustained shared thinking’, Siraj-Blatchford and Sylva 2004); the need for
teachers to value and respect children’s contribution (Pramling-Samuelsson and
Johannson 2009; Clark and Moss 2001); and work within socio-constructivist princi-
ples (Anning, Cullen, and Fleer 2008). These concerns have been reflected in UK
policy and curriculum requirements for a balance of child-initiated and adult-initiated
activity (DCELLS 2008; DCSF 2008) within play-based early years classes. When
considering the term ‘activity’ there is a need to maintain a focus on its interactional
as well as physical aspects. Children initiate physical activity (e.g., imaginative play,
scientific exploration) and they also initiate interactional activity (with each other and
with adults). There is, however, a dearth of research activity and associated literature
that considers what children initiate interaction with their teachers about.
The policy context for this study is the new approach to Welsh early years education
exemplified in the Foundation Phase: Framework for children aged 3–7 years in Wales
(DCELLS 2008). The framework has its origins in the vision document ‘The learning
country’ (National Assembly for Wales 2001), published by the then newly formed
assembly government to pave the way for an overhaul in the approach, organisation
 European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 475

and implementation of Welsh education policy. The Framework, statutory for 3- to 4-

years-olds from August 2008 and to be rolled out to Reception (4- to 5-year-olds), Y1
(5- to 6-year-olds) and Y2 (6- to 7-years-olds) classes by 2011 advocates a play-based
approach to learning in stimulating indoor and outdoor environments. It also advocates
the inclusion of both teacher-led and child-initiated activities and the need to ‘build on
what they [children] already know and can do, their interests and what they understand’
(DCELLS 2008, 6). A balance between adult- and child-initiated activity is called for
and the central focus of the teacher’s attention is to be on the child’s holistic develop-
ment. The well-being of the child forms the ‘heart’ (DCELLS 2008, 14) of the
Foundation Phase. The specific features of the new approach, relevant to the aspects
of this study that are reported here, are the requirements to build the curriculum, in
part, from the interests of the child (DCELLS 2008, 6) and to use the outside space as
a learning environment (DCELLS 2008, 4).

Related literature
Scandinavian studies concerning the physical uses to which children put their varied
outdoor spaces demonstrate the value of natural outdoor space for children’s activity/
play. Fjørtoft’s studies (2001, 2004; Fjørtoft and Sageie 2000) indicate that children
use the variety of forms that natural outdoor space offers to high degree. Here ‘natural’
space is considered to be that which has been largely undeveloped and not necessarily
predetermined as a space for children’s play. That is, natural space is that which
occurs as a result of a patch of land being left alone – a scrub or waste area within an
urban or semi-urban setting for example; or a designated, yet undeveloped park area
– a country park, a woodland or a mountainous/hilly area. The ‘affordances’ (Gibson
1979) or ‘functional significance’ (Heft 1988) of such natural space for children’s play
and activity, according to Fjørtoft’s studies, include varied physical uses – running,
rolling, building, climbing, for example; also varied social uses – solitary, parallel and
group play and activity; as well as varied play uses – imaginative, role play, fantasy
play. Fjørtoft’s studies also indicated that the motor fitness, balance and gross motor
skill development of children who are able to play in natural spaces is greater than
those who are given equivalent play experience on built equipment designated for
children’s physical play. Sandseter’s work (2007, 2009) has highlighted the potential
such spaces offer for children’s risk taking behaviour. Such behaviour is viewed here
as a positive and necessary aspect of children’s physical, emotional and social devel-
opment (for a more detailed consideration of this argument see Sandseter 2009;
Waters and Begley 2007; Stephenson 2003). It is specifically the varied nature of
natural space – the variety in terrain, undergrowth, vegetation, light and loose parts
(Nicholson 1971) – that appears to be a significant feature that distinguishes the
natural space from the built play space (see Tovey 2007).
Titman’s (1994) seminal work outlining the importance of the school grounds for
children in their primary years reported that ‘regardless of experience, home location,
etc, children valued and preferred natural environments much more highly than urban,
manufactured and built environments’ (41) and external, ‘particularly natural environ-
ments, signified opportunities for a range of things children wanted and needed to do
which were not possible indoors’ (ibid.). Found spaces and spaces not specifically
designed for them but where they could claim some ownership were valued by
children above manufactured, designated space since such areas ‘rarely fulfilled their
needs’ (op cit.).
476 J. Waters and T. Maynard

Recent work within the UK, concerning young children’s access to outdoor space
as part of their educational experience (as opposed to ‘playtime’ when children’s play
is generally supervised by adults other than teachers), reports a number of opportuni-
ties provided by children’s access to natural space for play and activity. For example,
Maynard (2007) highlights the ‘troubling’ of teacher–child power relationships in
such a space and Tovey (2007) reports on the potential benefits of an alternative pace
and focus of learning for the physical, emotional and social well-being of young chil-
dren. Waller (2006) demonstrates the opportunities provided for powerful and
extended co-construction of play narratives. However there is evidence that simply
being outside is not enough and the manner in which teachers and children engage
while they are outside impacts upon the resulting experience and associated learning
(see Maynard and Waters 2007; Valentine and McKendrick 1997).
Alongside the academic and policy focus on interaction and child-initiated activity
is a policy move to see young children using outdoor spaces as learning sites as well
as indoor spaces (DfES 2006; DCELLS 2008; DCSF 2008). This has been influenced
by academic literature and research concerning the shrinking horizon of modern west-
ern childhood (Valentine and McKendrick 1997; Burke 2005; Ouvrey 2000; Garrick
2004; Tovey 2007; Rasmussen 2004). However, while there is an increasing body of
literature that gives empirical evidence for the value of children’s outdoor activity in
terms of physical, health and social benefits, research concerning the use to which
children put the outdoor space for cognitive aspects of development, learning is rarely
addressed (Rickinson et al. 2004). There has been minimal attention paid to the
opportunities that outdoor spaces may offer in terms of supporting adult–child talk
and the potential for associated cognitive engagement. It is argued here that in an age
where policy requires that children spend an equivalent amount of their school time
outdoors as indoors the potential for cognitive gains from being outside must be
addressed empirically.
One way in which children may demonstrate their interest is through what they
choose to ‘bring’ to the teacher. That is, what the child initiates interaction about.
Since the introduction of curricular frameworks for the early years, little published
material exists that considers how and about what children initiate interaction with
their teachers, particularly in their outdoor spaces. This paper reports on one aspect of
a research project that sought, in part, to consider empirically this gap in the literature.
It is implicit within this study that children’s voices, interests and ideas should be
central to early years educational practice and so it follows that a concern with what
children talk to their teachers about is a valid and necessary line of research inquiry.

Research focus
The research question addressed in this paper is: What specific elements in the
outdoor environment draw children’s attention?

Research setting
The research was undertaken in a large inner city primary school in South Wales. Three
classes of children (Reception: 4- to 5-year-olds, Y1: 5- to 6-year-olds and Y2: 6- to
7-year-olds) and their teachers were involved. Each class visited a local country park
for an afternoon four times across the school year. This activity, initiated as part of an
Outdoor Learning Project (OLP; Waller 2006), has been part of the children’s school
 European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 477

experience for four years. The visits involved the children putting on appropriate protec-
tive clothing (wet weather trousers, padded waterproof jackets and Wellington boots)
as needed and walking for 15 minutes or so along pavements through a housing devel-
opment to reach the country park. The park itself was situated surrounding the summit
of a hill, and incorporated a variety of geomorphic features such as shallow and steep
terrain, wooded areas, open scrubland and heavily covered vegetation, grassed space,
puddles and swampy ground, trees and panoramic views. A popular area for local dog
walkers and used by local youths for recreation, there were often aspects of the space
that required care and children’s attention to avoid (e.g., broken glass, faeces, litter)
as well as aspects that provided further variety for children’s use and/or attention (e.g.
abandoned rope, lengths of wood, a mattress, a rusting car). The children and teachers
usually negotiated between them where, within the park, they would go on any partic-
ular trip. The ratio of adults to children was usually 1:2 or 1:3, as a result of support
from student volunteers and, occasionally, parents or additional adults from school.

Research methods
Since the study was set within a broad socio-cultural frame the data collection meth-
ods were devised to develop a rich data set from which to analyse various aspects of
adult–child interaction both indoors and outdoors. It is the data from outdoors that is
considered here. Visual and audio data were collected, for the duration of one school
year, to record all the interaction that the teachers had with children for the duration
of each of four two-hour outdoor trips per class. Consents for recording, storing and
using the data were negotiated according to the (BERA 2004) ethical code. The data
collection involved the teacher wearing a small digital audio recorder that was
switched on at the start of the session and allowed to run until the return to school. The
visual data was collected by one researcher with a DVD recorder. This was focussed
on the teacher for as much of the observation time as was possible. In total seven–nine
hours of audio/visual data were collected for each of the three participating teachers
in the outdoor environment. The data was analysed using a grounded theory approach
(Glaser and Strauss 1967; Charmaz 2000) involving coding of the elements of
episodes of interaction. An episode of interaction was delineated by a start point – a
child initiated approach to the teacher, and an end point – the point at which the
communication between the child and teacher ended.
Initially every episode of interaction was considered to determine whether it was
child-initiated. Each child-initiated episode was then descriptively coded; this process
(described in full in Waters 2009) involved rigorous iterative revisiting of codes and
data to establish a saturated (Glaser and Strauss 1967) list of initiation content-type.
The saturation of codes through analysis suggests that the final list of codes is repre-
sentative of the range of content across which children initiated interaction with the
teachers in the outdoor environment. Episodes in which children drew the teacher’s
attention to specific elements in the environment were then revisited and the specific
element identified. This allowed identification of the elements in the outdoor environ-
ment that drew children’s attention and it is this aspect of the study that is reported
and considered in most depth here.

Findings
When children initiated interaction with a teacher they:
478 J. Waters and T. Maynard

● Offered information, ideas or help.

● Drew attention.
● Complained.
● Made requests.
● Made conversation.

About a third of all child initiations related directly to an element within the envi-
ronment and this proportion was generally consistent across the three classes for each
visit. This was when a child drew the teacher’s attention to an object/element within
the environment. A further third of all initiations were indirectly related to the envi-
ronment, this was when the child’s initiation was related to being outside but not directly
focussed on a specific element in the environment. In the remaining third of all initi-
ations children addressed the teacher with content that was unrelated to being outside.
Outdoors, then, there were loose and fixed elements in the environment to which
children directly drew teachers’ attention for about a third of all the initiations they
made. Table 1 lists the specific elements that children drew attention to under the cate-
gories: loose parts (includes objects that can be picked from the undergrowth);
features of landscape/being outdoors (includes sensations such as feeling the wind);
wildlife; personal/shared familiar landmarks and ‘other’. The latter category includes
the fantasy elements that children referred to in the environment.
Field notes and audio-visual data indicate that children often expressed their
interest with awe and wonder. The elements stimulated questions and excitement and
this was brought to the teacher when children sought to draw attention to the source
of their interest. The list of elements might, therefore, be described as representing the
physical affordances (Gibson 1979) of the environment for interaction.

Discussion
In response to the research question, this study has highlighted the value of a natural
space with multiple, flexible features for stimulating children’s interest. The elements
that drew children’s direct interest were neither specialist nor complex but the simple
and recurring aspects of the outdoor environment.
The discussion considers why this environment provided an effective stimulus for
children’s interest and the implications of this for practice.

Why this environment provided an effective stimulus

The environment provided elements and features in which children have consistently
reported their interest. In Titman’s (1994) study, for example, children reported on
their ideal outdoor space associated with school as a space for doing, thinking, feeling,
and being – ideally simultaneously. In Titman’s work the signifiers of such ‘ideal’
environments were a natural landscape, livings things, colour diversity and change,
features that can be used for seating/shelter, private spaces and materials that can be
changed or used in an imaginative way. It is pertinent to recognise the convergence of
such reported signifiers with the elements of the outdoor space that children consis-
tently drew teachers’ attention to in this study. Indeed all the signifiers identified by
Titman’s work were features of the outdoor environment in this study.
Similarly, Moore (1986) records in his study of children’s use of their environ-
ments in the mid-1980s, how children make use of ‘found objects’ (78), including
Table 1. The elements of the environment about which children initiated interaction with their teachers.
Features of landscape/ being
Loose parts (includes objects that can be outdoors (includes sensations Personal /shared Other (includes
picked from undergrowth) such as feeling the wind) Wildlife familiar landmarks fantasy elements)
Berries (blackberries, raspberries) Trees Frogs Local tourist location Heart beating
Litter Roads Fish Nana’s Camouflage
Plants (wheat, grass, stinging nettles, Bike Spider Old nursery, nursery Elves’ home, elf
prickly tree) hole
Seeds and nuts (pine cone, grass seeds, fir Cave Horses School Hiding place (for
cone, acorn, sycamore seeds) dinosaur)
Stone, rocks, ‘crystals’: minerals in rocks Lake Springer spaniel My house Dragon home
Camp fire (made form other loose parts) Lighthouse Snails Bampi’s grave Monster, monsters
Mushrooms Hill, climbing hill, massive hill Cat Fire
Sticks, branches Echo tunnel Animals, creatures
Bark Hole, snake hole, rabbit hole Squirrel
Den (made form other loose parts) Cemetery, graveyard Bird
Leaf Windmills Ant
Found (unspecified) objects Football pitch Caterpillar
‘Spider eggs’: lichen growth on rocks Woods, forest Ladybird
Flowers (buttercups Park, swings, Dragonfly
Hail stones Soft moss Cows
Rope Puddles, mud, bog, dirt Worm
Carrot View Butterfly
Shells Car, crashed car
Church
Smoke
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal

Sound
Wind
Burnt trees, burnt patch
479
480 J. Waters and T. Maynard

flowers, seeds, nuts, berries, and ‘loose parts’, e.g., abandoned seats, and ‘collecting
things’ such as rocks, toadstools, leaves and how they made use of these in conjunc-
tion with ‘landscape features’ (80) such as pools, hills and streams. His work reflected
the interests of children in their middle years, recording what they did in their
neighbourhoods, usually without supervisory adults, in informal play situations. It is
interesting to note that the elements of the environment that these children commented
on and valued reflect what the children in the current study were drawn to in their
environment.
It appears that flexible, natural environments inherently offer opportunities for
children’s interest. The theory of loose parts, put forward by Nicholson (1971),
suggests that ‘in any environment, both the degree of inventiveness and creativity, and
the possibility of discovery, are directly proportional to the number and kind of vari-
ables in it’ (30). Nicholson argues that most environments (including school play
environments) do not ‘work’ because they do not meet the loose parts requirement. He
suggests that such environments are ‘clean, static and impossible to play around with’
(ibid.). The arguments may be particularly relevant to school environments since,
according to Nicholson:

… all children love to interact with variables, such as materials and shapes; smells and
other physical phenomena, such as electricity, magnetism and gravity; media such as
gases and fluids; sounds, music, and motion; chemical interactions, cooking and fire; and
other people, and animals, plants, words, concepts and ideas… all these things have one
thing in common, which is variables or ‘loose parts’. (Nicholson 1971, 30)

The empirical data reported here suggests that within children’s outdoor experi-
ences in school time ‘ideal’ spaces should have multiple, flexible loose parts. What is
particularly pertinent to note here in terms of the opportunities for learning inherent in
such spaces is the dramatic potential for interaction between teachers and their pupils
that reflects the interests of the child rather than those of the adult.

Implications for practice

It is suggested here that there is valuable learning potential in the child’s self-initi-
ated engagement with aspects of the environment that prompt some expression of
awe, wonder, excitement and/or questioning. When teachers respond to this expres-
sion in a manner that is congruent to (Payler 2007; Bae 2001) – or in tune with – the
child’s expression there is potential for rich, meaningful interaction to take place.
Loose parts in the outdoor space afford this opportunity, as do elements such as
varied environmental features, wildlife and personal or familiar landmarks. Such
elements contribute physically to the ‘interactional affordance’ (Waters 2007) of the
environment.
Children’s attention to environmental elements offers teachers the opportunity to
recognise and value the child’s experience and allows them to ‘build on what [chil-
dren] already know and can do, their interests and what they understand’ (DCELLS
2008, 6) as required by the Welsh Foundation Phase. By being alongside young chil-
dren as they experience such environments and draw attention to elements that interest
them the teacher is able to take opportunities to offer themselves as partner (more
knowledgeable or otherwise) in the experience. In this study this situation afforded
interactions between the children and their teacher that may be deemed particularly
effective in terms of children’s long term developmental outcomes – episodes of
 European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 481

sustained shared thinking, for example (Siraj-Blatchford et al. 2002; Sylva et al.
2003). This is reported in depth in Waters and Maynard (in preparation). Such ‘effec-
tive’ interactions between teacher and child may be supported by a rich outdoor envi-
ronment in which teachers respond to children’s interests as expressed in the
initiations they bring to the teacher for consideration. The loose parts inherent in a
wild, natural space afford a rich ‘curriculum of offer’ (Carr 2001, 540) from which
children can select or ‘edit’ (ibid.) their experiences. In recognising this selection
process, listening and responding to what children ‘edit’, the teacher is offered a valu-
able opportunity to gain insight into, share and build on children’s interests.
Just as Moore (1986) called for consideration of children’s preferences for play
and activity in their outdoor environments by suggesting planners leave some land that
is ‘richly textured’ or ‘unkempt’ (235), or of a ‘rougher, less ordered appearance’
(236) in the development of waste ground and open spaces; so this study supports the
provision of spaces for children’s outdoor play that are natural, flexible and varied.
There have long been calls for young children’s outdoor learning to be effectively
provisioned within the UK. The form of this provision in schools, though, is often
related to curriculum-linked content learning: for example Bilton (2002) urges that the
whole curriculum needs to be seen to be available outdoors. She suggests areas are set
up outdoors for: design, building and construction; active and vigorous physical work;
imaginative play; scientific discovery; language and mathematical work. However,
there have recently been texts that seek to broaden this provision – for example White
(2008) advises: ‘not to over-plan… [the] outdoor area and not to split [it] into too
many subject specific “areas”’ and to ensure that ‘elements of provision are not segre-
gated or limited to specific places’ (5) (see also Tovey 2007). Casey (2007) also seeks
to place the focus of provision on the potential for a wide variety of inclusive play
rather than for specific content learning.

Conclusion
This study provides empirical evidence that supports the provision of varied, flexible
outdoor spaces for young children’s playful outdoor activity. Such spaces may stimu-
late children to initiate interaction with their teachers about aspects they find interest-
ing, exciting and about which they may have questions. This study suggests the
richness of a natural space offers teachers a wealth of opportunity to respond to chil-
dren’s interests across the Foundation Phase age range. Rough space, full of bits of
stuff, mud, bugs and ‘things’, ideally within an unkempt area of uneven ground and
mixed vegetation might usefully sit alongside specific areas designated for pre-
defined learning content. When such a space is unavailable near or in school grounds
this study suggests that organising for children to access such space on a repeated
(though not necessarily frequent) basis may be worthwhile. As Moore noted (and this
study supports): ‘in the most chaotic-looking settings, children created their own order
out of the diversity of opportunities – selecting some and ignoring others’ (Moore
1986, 235); Carr (2001) may refer to this as children’s ‘editing’ of the curriculum on
offer. The value of varied, natural, environmental elements and, specifically, flexible
loose parts should not be underestimated in the context of children’s outdoor learning
and activity and the potential this offers for teachers to recognise and build on chil-
dren’s interests in and out of the classroom. The outdoor area therefore offers rich
potential for children’s cognitive engagement as well as their physical, health and
social development.
482 J. Waters and T. Maynard

Notes
1. The term ‘teacher’ has been used throughout to mean the practitioner charged with the
responsibility to provide for children’s learning in the space within the setting under
consideration. The location of the research is termed the ‘outdoor environment’ and is not
part of the school grounds.

References
Anning, A., J. Cullen, and M. Fleer. 2008. Early childhood education: Society and culture.
London: Sage.
Bae, B. 2001. Qualitative aspects of dialogue between children and adults in pre-school insti-
tutions. Paper presented at the 23rd World Congress of OMEP, 29 July–4 August, in
Santiago.
BERA. 2004. Revised ethical guidelines for educational research. Nottinghamshire: BERA.
Bilton, H. 2002. Outdoor play in the early years. London: David Fulton.
Burke, C. 2005. Play in focus: Children researching their own spaces and places for play.
Children, Youth and Environments 15, no. 1: 27–53.
Casey, T. 2007. Environments for outdoor play. London: Paul Chapman.
Carr, M. 2001. A sociocultural approach to learning orientation in an early childhood setting.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 14, no. 4: 525–42.
Charmaz, K. 2000. Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In The handbook
of qualitative research, ed. N.K. Denzin, and Y.S. Lincoln, 286–323. London: Sage.
Clark, A., and P. Moss. 2001. Listening to young children. The Mosaic approach. London:
National Children’s Bureau.
DCELLS. 2008. Foundation phase: Framework for children’s learning for 3- to 7-year-olds
in Wales. Cardiff: WAG.
DCSF. 2008. Statutory framework for the early years foundation stage. Nottingham:
Department Children Schools and Families.
DfES. 2006. Learning outside the classroom manifesto. Nottingham: Department for Education
and Science.
Fjørtoft, I. 2001. The natural environment as a playground for children: The impact of outdoor
play activities in pre-primary school children. Early Education Journal 29, no. 2: 111–7.
Fjørtoft, I. 2004. Landscape as playscape: The effects of natural environments on children’s
play and motor development. Children, Youth and Environments 14, no. 2: 21–44.
Fjørtoft, I., and J. Sageie. 2000. The natural environment as a playground for children:
Landscape description and analyses of a natural playscape. Landscape and Urban Planning
48: 83–97.
Garrick, R. 2004. Playing outdoors in the early years. London: Continuum International.
Gibson, J.J. 1979. The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Glaser, B.G., and A. Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualita-
tive research. Chicago: Aldine.
Heft, H. 1988. Affordances of children’s environments: A functional approach to environment
description Children’s Environment Quarterly 5, no. 3: 29–37.
Maynard, T. 2007 Encounters with Foucault: A risky business. Education 3-13 35, no. 4:
379–91.
Maynard, T., and J. Waters 2007. Learning in the outdoor environment: A missed opportunity.
Early Years 27, no. 3: 255–65.
Moore, R. 1986. Childhood’s domain: Play and place in child development. Kent: Croom Helm.
National Assembly for Wales. 2001. The learning country. Cardiff: NafW.
Nicholson, S. 1971. How not to cheat children: The theory of loose parts. Landscape
Architecture 62, no.1: 30–4.
Ouvry, M. 2000. Exercising muscles and minds in the early years. London: National Children’s
Bureau.
Payler, J. 2007. Opening and closing interactive spaces: Shaping 4-year-old children’s partici-
pation in two English setting. Early Years 27, no. 3: 237–54.
Pramling-Samuelsson, I., and E. Johansson. 2009. Why do children involve teachers in their
play and learning? European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 17 no. 1: 77–94.
 European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 483

Rasmussen, K. 2004. Places for children – children’s places. Childhood 11, no. 2: 155–73.
Rickinson, M., J. Dillon, K. Teamy, M. Morris, M. Choi, D. Sanders, and P. Benefield. 2004.
A review of research on outdoor learning. Shrewsbury: Field Studies Council.
Sandseter, E.B. 2007. Categorising risky play: How can we identify risk-taking in children’s
play? European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 15, no. 2: 237–52.
Sandseter, E.B. 2009. Children’s expressions of exhilaration and fear in risky play. Contem-
porary Issues in Early Childhood 10, no. 2: 92–106.
Siraj-Blatchford, I., and K. Sylva. 2004. Researching pedagogy in English pre-schools. British
Education Research Journal 30, no. 5: 713–30.
Siraj-Blatchford, I., K. Sylva, S. Muttock, R. Gilden, and D. Bell. 2002. Researching effective
pedagogy in the early years [REPEY]; Research Report 356. Norwich: DfES
Stephenson, A. 2003. Physical risk-taking: Dangerous or endangered? Early Years 23, no. 1:
35–43.
Sylva, K., E. Melhuish, P. Sammons, and I. Siraj- Blatchford. 2003. The effective provision of
pre-school education [EPPE] project. Technical paper 10. London: Institute of Education/
DfES
Titman, W. 1994. Special places, special people: The hidden curriculum of the school
grounds. Winchester: Learning Through Landscapes.
Tovey, H. 2007. Playing outdoors: Spaces and places, risk and challenge. Maidenhead:
McGraw Hill.
Valentine, G., and J. McKendrick. 1997. Children’s outdoor play: Exploring parental
concerns about children’s safety and the changing nature of childhood. Geoforum 28, no.
2: 219–35.
Waller, T. 2006. ‘Be careful – don’t come too close to my Octopus Tree’: Recording and
evaluating young children’s perspectives of outdoor learning. Children Youth and
Environments 16, no. 2: 75–104.
Waters, J. 2007. Spacious communication: A socio-cultural consideration of the affordances
of the indoor and outdoor environment for different communication episodes between
children and their teachers. Paper presentation to the 17th Annual EECERA Conference,
29 August–1 September, in Prague.
Waters, J. 2009. ‘There was a dragon over there’. Child-initiated interaction: An analysis of
the opportunities for interaction offered by the outdoor environment to 4–7 year old chil-
dren. Paper presented at the BERA annual conference; University of Manchester, 2–5
September, in Manchester.
Waters, J., and S. Begley. 2007. Supporting the development of risk-taking behaviours in the
early years: an exploratory study. Education 3-13 35, no. 4: 365–77.
Waters, J., and T. Maynard. In preparation. The occurrence of sustained shared thinking episodes
between children aged 4–7 years and their teachers in a natural outdoor environment.
White, J. 2008. Playing and learning outdoors. London: Routledge.
Copyright of European Early Childhood Education Research Journal is the property of Routledge and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.