Whether the weather be cold, or whether the weather be hot … children’s play preferences outdoors across a year in one private pre-school setting

ABSTRACT

The importance of play as a vehicle through which learning takes place for young children is well documented. Play in its many forms contributes to all types of development. Outdoor areas provide play places for young children, but their value is not fully established. Early Years settings must provide daily outdoor experiences for children, but research is needed to fully understand how children's developmental needs are met through outdoor provision. This study considers pre-school children in one setting who have regular access to a garden which is not highly cultivated; it provides a range of textures and surfaces for the children to explore in conjunction with a variety of resources. The study examines the ways in which children use the garden in different seasons and discusses factors, such as the weather and the adults in the setting, that affect their play alongside the affordance of outdoor resources available to them.

KEYWORDS:

• Young children
• outdoor play preferences
• weather
• resources

Introduction

Aim and purpose of the study

Early Years practitioners provide young children with a variety of play and learning experiences across a range of environments. Many practitioners emphasize the importance of outdoor play and it is a feature of Early Years policy (EYFS) (Department for Education, 2014). However, the rationale for outdoor play and the nature and benefits of it, including the amount of time spent outdoors, is still debated (DCSF, 2009; Tovey, 2007). Too often, the choices surrounding outdoor play are those of the practitioners who decide it is too cold or too wet (or similar reasons involving climatic factors) to go out and children are not always consulted about their preferences.

The aim of the study is to examine the use children aged 2–4 years make of one, specific outdoor environment over the course of a year, with the purpose of discovering whether children in the study prefer the outdoors as a learning environment and whether there are mitigating factors. Wilson (2008, preface) suggests that making an argument for children to play outdoors was un-necessary in previous generations. McClintic and Petty (2015) found that less time is spent outdoors now than in previous generations. There are perceived to be fewer opportunities for children to engage in outdoor play in natural spaces (Barratt Hacking, Barratt, & Scott, 2007; Louv, 2005). Bilton (2002, p. 1) states that young children like to play outside regardless of the weather. However, inclement weather can be perceived by practitioners to be a barrier to outdoor play (McClintic & Petty, 2015). Cooper (2015), states that despite a growing body of research that indicates the benefits of a natural outdoor environment across all areas of development, there are still few guidelines for practitioners.

Rationale and theoretical basis

Waters and Maynard (2010, p. 478) study of children’s interactions with teachers in the outdoors supports ‘the value of a natural space with multiple, flexible features for stimulating children’s interest.’ The study highlights the potential for cognitive learning in such environments, specifically if ‘loose parts’ are available. The concept of ‘loose parts’ concerns the nature of resources that can be moved and changed for play purposes (Nicholson, 1971). Tovey (2007) suggests a range of loose parts that enable outdoor environments to be creative spaces for children, whilst Titman (1994) identifies the value of school grounds as a rich place for play and learning and Moore (1986) suggests that some land should be allowed to grow rather wild in order to allow children to explore and investigate in their own way.

The garden of the research setting affords a special space for play and exploratory learning. The changing seasons provide variables that influence play possibilities and offer opportunities to engage in risky play. Stephenson (2003) and Sandseter (2007) categorize risky play, and some elements of such play e.g. climbing and jumping off equipment, bike riding/crashing, sliding in mud, testing the depth of puddles which can be seen in the garden. Holmes and Procaccino (2009, p. 1111) suggest that children’s preferences are influenced by the choice of equipment available to them in specific areas and note that researching small spaces rather than types of playground may be useful in ascertaining play preferences. The Early Years Foundation Stage Framework, first published in 2007 and statutory from 2008, suggests an equation that provides the basis for good practice. The first three themes of the framework: A Unique Child, Positive Relationships, and Enabling Environments together to equal the fourth theme: Learning and Development.

It is therefore worthwhile to research the play behaviour of young children to support and inform policy.

Play as exploratory learning

Reilly’s theory (1974) indicates three hierarchical stages of play: Exploratory, Competence, and Achievement. The Exploratory phase demonstrates the curiosity of the young child investigating the properties of the environment. The phase is essentially about an individual interacting with the environment by herself, investigating the nature of objects and natural elements. The child is motivated, through curiosity, to explore using her senses, gaining valuable knowledge through trial and error. She may do this alongside others, but the play is to suit her own purposes and is not intentionally sociable. Gibson (1979) made up the term affordance to suggest the connection between man and the environment, and others, such as Niklasson and Sandberg (2010) and Kyttä (2003) have discussed a range of surfaces and objects used by children in the outdoor environment. Smidt (2011) explains the work of Hutt (1976) who suggests that an exploring child might ask of an object ‘what can I do with this?’ before beginning to play with it, when the question changes to ‘what can this do for me?’ Hutt terms this epistemic behaviour, centred upon problem-solving and productive activity. Exploration in an outdoor environment extends the possibilities for such play, because of the varied textures and surfaces and the ways these can change in different climatic conditions. In this study, behaviour was noted in different seasons, especially in relation to 2-year-old children who, for example, were able to learn how soil changes in consistency, becoming muddy after a period of rain.

The Competence stage (Reilly, 1974) is characterized by the desire to deal with the environment and practice new skills. This stage is still mainly concerned with the individual focusing upon developing knowledge and skills. The outdoor space may offer new opportunities because it is a different space for object play e.g. throwing, catching, or retrieving a ball. The child learns, for example, that a ball bounces differently on grass as opposed to a hard surface. The practice of skills over time is important in gaining confidence, which in turn leads to competence, and thus researching a setting over the course of different seasons throughout a year can assist with tracking development and progress. The environment may in itself be sufficient without any materials or further resources e.g. a hill to roll down or a tree to climb. However, the combination of the natural environment with moveable resources or ‘loose parts’ creates a further series of play opportunities. Waters and Maynard (2010, pp. 480–481) use affordance theory in connection with outdoor areas, with Waters concluding, in terms of implications for practice, ‘ … there is valuable learning potential in the child’s self-initiated engagement with aspects of the environment … ’ and ‘the value of natural, environmental elements and specifically, loose parts, should not be underestimated in the context of children’s outdoor learning and activity.’ Furthermore, Sandseter (2009) considered two types of pre-school environment in Norway and concluded that a play environment in a natural area afforded a higher degree of risk for children.

The Achievement stage of Reilly’s theory is linked to expectancies- and play may be transformed from intrinsic to extrinsic behaviour (Reilly, 1974). The child has developed knowledge of the outdoor area, practiced skills in order to achieve competency and may have gained mastery. It is only at this point that play really becomes sociable. It has thus far been an individual, solitary experience. It can now be enhanced through socializing with others and playing with those who have similar skills and interests; this could include adults. Children in this phase want to demonstrate their achievements and stretch themselves further through experiencing the response of others- to stay with the example of ball play, this would be the time that a child bounces a ball, hits it to another and expects the ball to be returned, in other words, the beginning of a game with rules and expectations. The child wants to draw attention to what she can do, and play in this stage is frequently characterized by utterances such as ‘Look at me!’ ‘Look what I can do!’ ‘Watch this.’

The children in the research setting came to realize that I was interested in what they could do and, especially towards the end of the study, asked me to specifically note their expertise. This was particularly noted on wheeled vehicles going downhill (e.g. a scooter or two-person bike). The link between physical achievement and the use of language may be important here in terms of child development, with the accompanying emotional satisfaction that results from interactions with both other children and adults. It is therefore applicable to slightly older children in the setting.

Outdoor spaces vary in size, resources, and the way in which they are set up and therefore in what they can offer in terms of exploratory play. The way in which practitioners work with children also influences their use of the outdoor area. In the context of these conditions for learning, the question of whether children prefer to play outdoors was considered and a longitudinal study across one academic year was planned to see whether seasonal changes or different types of weather impacted upon play.

Climatic conditions

According to Bilton (2002) and McClintic and Petty (2015:, p. 29), children enjoy outdoor play even in inclement weather. Niklasson and Sandberg (2010) report gender differences in Scandinavian studies of outdoor play (Ärlemalm-Hagsér, 2006; Sandberg & Vuorinen, 2006), with Sandberg and Vuorinen suggesting that the majority of girls prefer outdoor play when it’s warm, or when there is snow (Niklasson & Sandberg, 2010, p. 488). Conversely, Ernst (2014) reported that some practitioners (in the U.S.A.) perceived winter weather to be a barrier to outdoor play. Climatic conditions in England are different to those in Scandinavia or the U.S.A. and there is a lack of research into the impact of the weather, but there are general perceptions that wet weather is a barrier to going outside. Ouvry (2003, p. 4) explains that practitioners appear concerned for children who might not want to be outside in cold, wet or windy weather, but suggests that in reality it is the practitioners who do not want to be out in it. Rooney (2018, p. 2) encourages practitioners to consider the pedagogical significance of child/weather relations, and this article aims to consider children’s experiences of outdoor play in differing weather conditions across the seasons.

Research questions

Do children in this setting prefer to play outdoors?

How do children utilize the outdoor space?

What impacts upon their play choices?

The research setting

The setting is a privately-owned pre-school in an affluent village in the north of England. It is based in a one-storey building, formerly used as a residence. It has a small garden surrounding it that can be accessed by the children on three sides, allowing for a grassed area and an area on a slope known as ‘the hill’ where bikes, scooters and other wheeled toys can be used. It has one or two raised flower beds, a mud kitchen, a shed for resources, a play house and a gazebo. Willow has been planted on the hill and is gradually being shaped into a shelter, forming a natural ‘den,’ and there are a number of logs that can be used as seats or stepping stones, a few shrubs, some herbs in planters and several trees that help to screen the setting from a local public pathway and a nearby residence. In wet weather, a large puddle forms in an area by the gate of the setting.

The setting is adjacent to a primary school, and a low fence divides the garden from the school playground. The setting does not have a hard-core area like the school playground, but it does have a path. The garden is not a forest, but the lead practitioner claims the setting has a ‘Forest School ethos’ in that the children can access the garden area in all weathers and during all sessions, providing it is safe to do so (i.e. checked and risk assessed in accordance with the safeguarding requirements of EYFS) and they can select their own activities.

The setting caters to 2–4-year-olds and has approximately 50 children registered, but patterns of attendance vary, with between 20 and 30 children at any one time. The ethos of the setting in the study is one that encourages children to be agents in their own learning. The staff do not set up activities, but rather allow children to lead their own learning through accessing a range of resources. Consequently, the children can access the outdoors at any time during a session, for as long as they choose and practitioners support their outdoor play whatever the weather.

Methodology

According to Rankin (2004), Malaguzzi, the founder of the Reggio Emilia approach, held an image of the child who is strong, capable, resilient and able to learn alongside others. This view is shared by the practitioners in the research setting, who encourage children to actively lead their own learning. The researcher, as a participant observer, endeavoured to discover the everyday life of the setting in the outdoor area, both from the perspective of the child and that of the practitioner. There is a particular focus in the study on how the adults interact with the children in the outdoor environment.

Pascal and Bertram (2009), basing their work on articles 12 and 13 of the UN Children’s Rights agenda (Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989) discuss the need to allow young children to express their views in a range of ways, with adults listening carefully to their ideas and opinions. They suggest that practitioners need to reflect on environmental contexts for listening (Pascal & Bertram, 2009, p. 260). Einarsdóttir (2007, p. 199) discusses the importance of using methods that suit the competence, knowledge, interest, and context of the children involved. In researching children’s preferences for outdoor play, this research uses photographs and video footage to allow children to comment upon sequences of play that are important for them. Alderson (2008, p. 175) suggests that making videos enables children to express their experiences very directly. Moreover, the researcher takes a praxeological approach (Pascal & Bertram, 2012, p. 480) in attempting to conduct the research in an ethical, authentic way, being conscious of power-relationships between adults and children.

Palaiologou (2012, p. 50) discusses the need for the researcher to be as objective as possible in recording what actually happens. However, participant observations have limitations as they tend to rely on memory. Field notes systematically recorded the date, time of day and duration of the visit, the type of weather, the number of children playing outdoors, and the resources or loose parts that the children were interacting with. When possible, the temperature was recorded and the role of the adult was noted, e.g. in terms of supporting play. Notes were written up immediately after setting visits and photographs were used in addition and linked to specific events or sequences of play. To accomplish this purpose, the collection of data occurred over the course of one academic year. This enabled the researcher to make weekly visits of up to two hours on different days and at different times and to make observations in the garden across all types of weather and throughout the change of seasons.

Ethical considerations

A meeting was held where the research was fully explained to the parents, who were asked to give written consent for their child to be included in the study and for the use of photography. A written explanation was also provided. Any child could be withdrawn from the study at any time, and the wishes of the parents and children were respected. A separate explanation was given to staff during a staff meeting so that they understood the presence of the researcher. The researcher allowed time for the children to become accustomed to her presence in the setting before beginning to take photographs and videos, and always negotiated on-going assent with children when observing their play behaviour.

Members of staff were invited to contribute their views through the means of a focus group and through supporting children in reviewing photographs or short video sequences of play. Sharp (2011, p. 23) advises that some participants may be more willing to participate in research if it is in a group context, and that they may find the experience stimulating and enjoyable. Another advantage is that a focus group can provide a more in-depth consideration of issues, however, there is a potential for bias. The method seemed to suit the purposes of this research because a lot of staff were present in a staff meeting when the children were not attending the setting. This enabled an in-depth discussion of the children’s play and the support given by adults.

Children were involved in the study through reviewing photographs and video clips of play and offering their thoughts and suggestions about them. They did this in conjunction with practitioners with whom they felt comfortable rather than with the researcher directly.

Sharman, Cross, and Vennis (2004) indicate that checklists can be pre-set and that they encourage the researcher to focus on one, specific aspect. The researcher asked practitioners to review sequences of activity with children using a very basic checklist e.g. can the child remember the play? What were they doing? Who were they playing with? Did they enjoy the play?

Findings

Findings are reported across the seasons in accordance with three key themes: resources, weather considerations, and the role of the adult.

Autumn (September, October and November)

The research commenced during the autumn term, when a new intake of children was settling in. Some 2-year-old children were experiencing their first opportunities to mix socially in an educational setting, whilst 3 and 4-year old children were adjusting to being the older members in the group, their friends having left at the end of the summer term in order to start school. All children were allowed to free-flow play between indoors and outdoors. In this setting, this meant that children could choose to go outside, whatever the weather, and were allowed to do so providing they were dressed appropriately.

Resources

Resources could be chosen by the children. Loose parts, in the form of crates, planks, and heavy-duty polyurethane pieces were out most of the time and offered the potential of building an obstacle course. Groups of children frequently engaged in building this co-operatively, thus ensuring that the finished course matched their physical abilities. Large equipment, such as wheeled vehicles, were stored in an outdoor shed and accessed by adults at the request of the children. The children enjoyed riding or pushing bikes (depending upon pedaling ability) up the hill, sometimes requesting adult assistance towards the top, and free-wheeling down into a puddle. Child-sized wheel barrows additionally provided opportunities for physical play, with some children interested in filling them with sand and then manoeuvring them down the hill. Digging for worms in the mud was fascinating for some children, who would put them into a wheelbarrow and take them around the garden to show to others. Transporting also occurred with dolls in prams. Throughout the season, puddle play was constant and the children never lost interest.

A large log, situated by the fence that divided the setting from the primary school, afforded a social space for the young children to chat to their siblings and friends over the fence during school play time (break). This involved climbing up on to the log and waiting for the older children to come into the playground. This activity remained constant throughout the course of the year and provided an important link with the school in terms of helping the children prepare for the next stage of their education.

Weather considerations

Throughout the autumn all children accessed the outdoors regularly. Some needed encouragement to go outside and were out only briefly, whereas others spent long periods in the garden. The predominant weather of the season was rain, and the children took advantage of a large, muddy puddle by the gate to enjoy splashing. The puddle became the focus of play on wheeled vehicles, with children finding out if they could make a big splash after travelling down the hill. A 2-year-old boy, hereafter referred to as ‘Puddle Boy,’ spent a lot of time jumping in and out of puddles of varying depth, expressing some language as he did so e.g. ‘in’ or ‘out’. ‘Puddle Boy’ and another 2-year-old, ‘Happy Girl,’ were seen outside during every session that they were attending at the same time as the researcher.

Wet weather impacted upon environmental play choices, e.g. one 4-year-old boy, organizing a game with a group of friends, went to check what it was like outdoors and returned saying: ‘It’s raining, we’d better stay in.’ The temperature also affected the amount of time spent outdoors, because, as the weather gradually turned colder, the children recognized the need for hats and gloves, which for some children, took time to put on. Children also began to realize that they had to move around outdoors in order to stay warm. This may have been a reason why they stayed outside for shorter time periods.

The role of the adult

Adults did not set up activities for children in the outdoor environment. They actively encouraged children to access the outdoors and helped them get ready to go out. They responded to children’s requests for resources (especially if equipment was in storage) and then supported them in their play e.g. accessing wheeled vehicles. Sometimes physical support was necessary such as a helpful push to get to the top of the hill on a bike or the manipulation of a loose part in an obstacle course. However, adults allowed children to make choices themselves, e.g. the way in which an obstacle course was set up. The adults observed children closely and organized the space in order for children to initiate their own activities.

Children sometimes asked adults to join in their play, or talked to adults whilst they were playing. Practitioners used such opportunities to extend language, for example when ‘Puddle Boy’ was jumping in and out of puddles, they extended his vocabulary through introducing positional language such as ‘over’ and ‘through,’ which he quickly learned. When joined by a 3-year-old friend, his learning was extended further through a discussion of depth, when a plastic crocodile entered the water and ‘deep’ and ‘shallow’ were quickly learned.

There was only one visit, in late November, when the researcher arrived to find that no children were in the outdoor area; everyone was indoors. The weather was dull but mild, with a few spots of rain. This was an unusual occurrence and the subject of a subsequent focus group discussion with the staff. They were of the opinion that an engaging activity was happening indoors, in which everyone wanted to participate. They discussed at length the importance of supporting children, but also allowing them to make their own choices.

Winter (December, January and February)

The children continued to access the garden area throughout the winter, as and when they wished to, despite some very cold conditions.

Resources

There were one or two occasions (in December) when bikes/ wheeled vehicles were not available, due to the ground being deemed too slippery. The children were encouraged on those occasions to try using other resources, such as large tyres that could be stepped in and out of or stacked to make a tower.

In every season, the mud kitchen was well used, but in the winter, the structure provided some shelter from the elements in addition to purposeful play. Children made mud cakes and pies through mixing mud and water. They poured ‘tea’ through sieves and added natural ingredients such as leaves, twigs and stones to their potions and recipes. They played alone and with others. Adults were called over to join in occasional tea parties, but the play was child-initiated and child-led. The resources (such as pots, pans, cups, and utensils) provided within the kitchen were frequently taken to other parts of the garden, and they seem to have been more important to the children than the actual ‘kitchen’ space.

Weather considerations

The weather was cold, but also wet throughout the season. Differing amounts of rain meant that the puddles changed size and shape, and, on one occasion, the extent of the main puddle (at the bottom of the hill) meant that everyone had to access the setting through the front door rather than through the conservatory. Children who went into the garden helped to bail out the big puddle so that the back gate could be used again. They were very interested in filling up buckets and throwing the water out away from the puddle.

The checklist to monitor who accessed the garden was used during February. All children were out at some point, though some had to be encouraged by practitioners.

On one occasion, when the temperature was only just above freezing and it had started to snow but the flakes were not settling, one child was preparing to go outdoors as the researcher arrived. She was a 2-year-old of Asian origin, hereafter referred to as ‘Cold Girl.’ Only one other child, a 4-year-old girl, was outside, and she decided to come back in as ‘Cold Girl’ ventured out. Having initially been enthusiastic about going out, and well clad in a waterproof suit, hat, and gloves, ‘Cold Girl’ froze (i.e. she remained stationary) on the threshold, with one foot inside and one foot outside, as the impact of the cold air met her. She could not determine whether to continue to move outside, or to return to the warmth indoors. The cold had a literally paralyzing effect. She remained on the spot for several minutes, completely overwhelmed and uncertain what to do, despite two practitioners being available to help her and support her. Finally, one of the practitioners led her back in doors, where she appeared to metaphorically and literally thaw out. The incident was later discussed with practitioners.

The role of the adult

Different types of play required different types of support. One small group of boys continually asked a practitioner to role play ‘The Three Little Pigs,’ with the practitioner taking the role of the big, bad wolf. This may well have originated through the children hearing this traditional story, possibly in a play group session, but the children were never specifically directed to play in this way. Once the game was established, with the children making up the rules, others were keen to join in and the interest lasted across several weeks. It took place in several parts of the garden, including a play house and often involved the children being chased. Chasing, and running up the hill enabled the children to keep warm in the coldest part of the winter.

Another popular game was ‘Mums and Dads,’ the age-old, traditional activity of adopting family roles and related activities e.g. pushing another child along in a buggy, preparing meals etc. These games were often grouped around particular individuals, who organized them and led the others. They could be adapted to any environment and were played indoors as well as in the garden.

Spring (March, April and May)

As Spring progressed, more children spent more time outdoors and there was a greater number of children outside rather than indoors for most of the time.

Resources

Some children continued to be interested in exploring puddles, especially depth and where the water came up to on their wellington boots. Others wanted to jump, to see how far they could make the water move and to see how floating objects could be moved too. The nature and purpose of play changed somewhat during the season, with a greater emphasis on socialization through group play, in the form of traditional games, overseen by an adult. Many children joined in enthusiastically, although one or two individuals continued with their own solitary play in the mud kitchen and the water.

Weather considerations

In early March, it was still very wet, and the main puddle was extensive. Following the wet start, in the middle of the month the weather suddenly improved and became milder, brighter, and much warmer. The researcher arrived one morning to find that almost everyone – children and adults – was outdoors enjoying the Spring sunshine. With flowers starting to emerge, some play focused on natural materials. A crop of buttercups just beyond the hill attracted a group of girls who gathered many of them. The flowers were then used to test ‘Who likes butter?’, a game whereby one child holds a buttercup under the chin of another, to see if they can see the bright, yellow colour reflected. One boy dropped a flower stalk in a puddle and commented: ‘Look, a smile’ and later showed the researcher a daffodil in bud, suggesting that it was ‘sad’ (due to not being fully out).

There was still plenty of mud about and some children made creative combinations of mud and grass and tested whether they stuck to different parts of outdoor equipment. The stickiness of the mud also proved challenging in physical play, with some children testing whether they could push the wheeled toys through mud. Although many children were enjoying the outdoors, some remained inside and needed encouragement to go out.

 The role of the adult

The children often sought out an adult and asked for her to lead a game e.g. the ring game entitled: ‘The Farmer’s in the den’ and the stop/start running game known as ‘Traffic Lights.’

The adults appeared to be happy to set up such games when asked by the children, and this factor, combined with the improved weather, may account in part for the change in the nature of the play.

The arrival of a new member of staff enabled the researcher to gain further insights into the nature of relationships between children and adults in the setting. The new adult was taking a lead in a game involving ‘cooking’ in the mud kitchen e.g. sending a child off to find a stone to be used as an egg when making a cake. Although two girls initially followed the adult’s instructions, the game did not last for long as the children moved the pots and pans they required away from the mud kitchen to a site where they could pursue their own interests without the presence of the adult. This formed part of the discussion with the focus group.

Summer (June and July)

Once again, observations suggest that the weather, the resources, and the adults had an impact upon play.

Resources

There was a further shift in the play focus correlating to changes in the weather. The children asked for a hosepipe and water was experienced in a different way to puddle play.

A large plastic boat was obtained for children to jump in and out of, and ‘Going fishing’ became the focus of an imaginative game. Eventually some boys decided they were going to put water into the boat rather than around it. Practitioners supervised children jumping into the boat to ensure that they were playing safely.

Weather considerations

As the temperature rose to 20 degrees centigrade and more, most children were outside for much of the available time and adults became aware of the need for shade in some open parts of the garden. A tarpaulin was used to provide shade over the loose parts obstacle course. One or two children thought it was too hot to be outside and at least one practitioner stayed indoors to supervise indoor play.

The role of the adult: staff focus group

In June, the researcher attended a staff meeting in order to discuss findings with all the practitioners and question them on their perceptions of play. They were genuinely fascinated by the children’s play behaviour and keen to explain how and why they stood back to allow the children to lead their own learning. When questioned about the day when no children were outside, it transpired that a child-initiated activity indoors, supported by practitioners, had captured the imagination of all the children and everyone had stayed inside to participate in it. A lively conversation ensued over the question of stepping back and allowing children to take the lead in play. Several practitioners spoke about their previous experience of other settings where activities were set up by the staff for children to choose from, and how difficult they found it at first when working in a new way. However, when they saw the potential of learning through experience and interest they all came to believe that it was a better way of working. The new staff member discussed how she had to adapt her practice and learn to observe more and take the lead less often. The ways in which children’s learning can be supported e.g. through providing challenge, extending language, etc. also featured in the conversation as staff reviewed photographs and videos of the children playing outside. They were keen to review episodes of play with children and it was agreed that the researcher’s ipad should be available, if the opportunity arose, to review play episodes with individual children.

Reviewing play episodes with children

With hindsight, it would have been a good idea to start this activity earlier in the year, in order to gain a greater amount of feedback. However, it was very evident that the children thoroughly enjoyed seeing themselves on film and often watched the clips several times over with their key person. The researcher witnessed one such review, a recall of the traffic lights game, and the child could respond to questions about how to play the game. Several children wanted to see the clips a number of times. The actual viewing of the footage, rather than a verbal review of the play episode, seemed to be important to the children. Another example that provided evidence of achievement and which linked well to Reilly’s theory was a child on a scooter who wanted to watch her successful negotiation of the hill multiple times.

Children responding to the researcher

One unexpected consequence of the longitudinal nature of the study was the association of the children with the researcher’s methods of data collection. One child made the association between outside activities and using the ipad for videoing purposes and, on several occasions, asked for the same wheeled toy from the shed, in order to see if she could be filmed whilst scooting speedily down the hill. Another boy was interested in how the ipad functioned and went outside purely to see if he could help with the recording of data.

Discussion

The data suggest that there is a strong connection between the resources available to children in their play, the other players (including adults and their role in the play) and the seasonal changes in the weather.

Children modified and adapted resources to suit their needs in the natural environment. The findings concur with those of Waters and Maynard (2010) and show that cognitive learning took place outdoors when children were interacting with loose parts and with practitioners. Loose parts were important for different purposes. Tyres, crates, planks, and blocks enabled children to set up their own physically demanding and sometimes risky play (e.g. the creation of an obstacle course), but equally pots, pans, sticks, and stones and other natural materials were used in imaginative play and role play (e.g. playing ‘Mums and Dads’).

Reilly’s (1974) exploratory phase of play was seen when individual children spent time investigating what could be done with a range of materials/objects. Through repetition and practice children soon became competent players and moved from needing the support and help of an adult (e.g. holding hands when balancing) to jumping from a height and landing safely without adult guidance. As O’Brien and Murray (2007:, p. 50) suggest ‘they engage in more explorative play activities when in natural spaces that they can adapt and modify to meet their own needs.’ Objects and resources were moved around the play space to suit children’s own play purposes and the objects themselves appeared to have greater significance than a specific area where they were used. Whilst the ‘Mud Kitchen’ was used as a place to shelter in inclement weather in the winter, it was more of a storage space in better weather when children could move around more freely and use the utensils for their own play purposes.

Many of the children in this setting accessed the outdoors regularly and did so whatever the weather. This finding agrees with McClintic and Petty (2015), although the research cannot claim that this was true for all the children in the study. Puddle Boy and Happy Girl, both aged two years, were seen playing frequently outside in very wet weather. For these two children, being outdoors was a necessary part of their day and their pre-school experience. They appeared to need time outside, often engaged in solitary play to explore and investigate independently. In direct contrast, there were one or two children who only went outdoors when encouraged to do so by a practitioner and who generally preferred to be inside. Many of the children played outdoors for part of a session; sometimes alone, sometimes with others. The outdoor play space was a little larger than the interior, so this may have impacted the children’s choices too. The use of the checklist did not really shed light on preferences for being outdoors. It showed that all children did access the garden at some point, however the list was occasionally overlooked, but it did give an indication of the extent of outdoor activity across a session or a week. If the method was to be used in any subsequent study the criteria would need to be strengthened and regulated to a greater degree. However, an important point to make here is that children had many opportunities to play outdoors and could make choices for themselves, pertaining to environment, resources, and other players, including adults.

This research thus concurs with Holmes and Procaccino (2009) that children’s preferences are concerned with the resources/ equipment available to them, but the results of the study suggest that in fact it is choice that is important to children. Thus Ouvry’s (2003) work is significant here; if adults do not want to be outside in inclement weather, they may take the decision to remain indoors and remove the choice from the children. The adults in the research setting actively encouraged children to go outside whatever the weather and, in doing so, enabled valuable learning to take place. This is exemplified in the incident concerning ‘Cold Girl,’ where practitioners in a subsequent discussion thought that the child had possibly never experienced such cold conditions. It was suggested that the child’s mother associated being cold with being ill and had perhaps instructed her not to go outdoors. The child may have experienced cognitive conflict in wanting to see what the outside was like in very cold weather whilst also being aware of her mother’s views.

Play materials and resources

At times, it was the affordance of an object in combination with natural materials, exemplified through an individual stirring ‘soup’ (muddy water) in a saucepan, that enabled a child to make connections and play out real-life situations. Equally, an object such as a saucepan, without the water, could be turned upside down and used as a hat.

The affordance of any object, for any child, can be used to further learning when a child initially explores the potential of it for himself and subsequently when an adult (or more knowledgeable other) suggests a hitherto unforeseen course of action for it. Thus Hutt’s (1976) idea of epistemic behaviour becomes a valuable aspect of learning when seen in the context of a social group.

Reilly’s (1974) competence stage requires the individual child to come to terms with a new environment and practice new skills; consequently, the very act of taking any object from indoors to the outside world or from one part of the setting to another, offers a whole wealth of new possibilities. Due to the nature and space of the outdoor environment (as compared to the indoor one) there is an opportunity to practice skills more often. This was seen, for example, in changing weather conditions and in the group of children who wanted to test their wheeled toys on the ‘hill’ in a variety of weather conditions.

Doing this individually meant that children could gain mastery and move into Reilly’s achievement stage, participating competently in an activity or game with a group of others. Continuing to test their skills in relation to others on a regular basis ensured this move into the achievement stage. Children demonstrated the importance of this when reviewing video clips and photos with practitioners. They recalled the nature of the play on each occasion and commented upon what they were doing. They enjoyed replays too, and this was perhaps a means through which learning became embedded as some children saw how their skills and competencies increased.

Adults and other players

Children require opportunities to play and explore outside by themselves, but also in conjunction with other children and adults. Reilly’s (1974) achievement stage suggests the benefits of socializing and playing with others who have similar skills. Co-operative peer play allows children to try out their own ideas with other children without adult interference. It is an important and necessary phase for children, but it can be difficult for an adult to know when, how and if children require support. The incident in the Mud kitchen with a new member of staff illustrates this; the children moved their play because they did not want her involvement (despite her good intentions).

Children will seek support or assistance from an adult when they require it and as they learn from their experience within the setting. In the ‘Three Little Pigs’ game, the adult was specifically asked to take on the role of the big, bad wolf. The boys who initiated this were aged 4 and able to understand story and the idea of taking on a role in pretend play. The adult being the wolf was supporting their play, but in a manner that was acceptable for the children and which they had requested. The frequent repetition of this game was interesting and there are several reasons why it may have been perpetuated e.g. because it provided role-play opportunities for a range of children; because it allowed the juxtaposition of adults and children (the adult being the ‘bad’ character) and the physical thrill and excitement of being chased (and not caught) by the ‘baddie’. It might also be true that the one practitioner who was most frequently asked to play understood the children’s requirements and did not attempt to change the game herself for the purposes of extending learning. She had learned the children’s rules and was happy to abide by them.

At other times, such as when the weather began to improve and more adults were outside because more children were outside, children asked adults to start games that were well-known, e.g. ‘The Farmer’s in the den,’ which follows a particular sequence. In both types of game Reilly’s achievement stage can be realized as children learn to participate as part of a group or team and they know what is expected of them.

Seasonal changes in the weather

The seasonal changes in the weather have an effect upon children’s play outside. Many more children enjoy playing outdoors when the weather is fine and warm as opposed to when it is cold and wet. However, each type of weather brings with it a new range of possibilities in terms of play. Both ‘Puddle Boy’ and ‘Happy Girl’ needed to experience for themselves the impact of changes in climate upon their play space. Thus ‘Happy Girl’ felt the need to leave her indoor game with a group of children to go outside to feel the wind. ‘Puddle Boy’ spent a long time in wet and relatively cold weather exploring the nature and purpose of puddles. Rain, sun, snow and ice and wind all have an effect upon natural materials and this opens up another world of play possibilities for children. Sun-baked, hard and dry mud becomes slippery when wet and children need to learn how to respond to these changes. Slippery surfaces may pose challenges and encourage children to take risks in their learning. Knowing how to respond is important. The example of ‘Cold Girl’ shows the 2-year-olds lack of experience and uncertainty in confronting a new situation. Although she did not, in the end, venture into the garden, she learned about cold weather and how it made her feel, physically, as she remained on the threshold. The 4-year old who commented upon the wet weather understood that his play purposes would be better suited to the indoors because of the rain – but he learned that through direct experience. Children need to be allowed opportunities to experience a range of weather and seasonal changes in a space with which they are familiar. Thus the ‘Do you like butter?’ game with spring flowers became an important part of learning as the warmer weather and new growth set in. The researcher agrees with Rooney (2018) that practitioners need to consider the significance of child/weather relations and allow children to choose for themselves whether they want to play out in different climatic conditions.

In reviewing video clips and photographs with practitioners, children were always able to recall what they had been doing. They responded to questions from practitioners and often asked to see video sequences several times over. This activity was perhaps a means through which learning became embedded as some children saw how their skills and competences increased. Generally, children’s comments centred upon the nature of the activity and the resources and other players. Making further links to weather conditions could be encouraged in the future.

Conclusion

Many children in the research setting enjoy outdoor play and the range of possibilities provided through regular access to a garden. Most children in the study played outdoors frequently and some children showed a preference for the outdoor environment and spent more time outside than inside, evidenced through field notes from observations. However, there were, conversely, some children who needed encouragement from adults to venture outside, especially in cold and wet weather. The findings cannot be generalized as they only pertain to one, small-scale case study.

In the outdoor environment, the children engaged in exploratory play which suited their own needs and purposes, both individually (especially the youngest children) and in groups (mainly seen in the co-operative play of the oldest children). The affordance of resources and natural materials increased the scope of their play. Children looked to adults for a range of purposes; sometimes adults were partners in play, sometimes onlookers and supporters, sometimes providers of equipment, sometimes a source of comfort. Adults ventured outside when children wanted to be outdoors, sometimes in cold, wet conditions. It is essential that adults are responsive to the developmental needs of young children in this way and that they do not prohibit children accessing the outdoors simply because they do not wish to be outside themselves. Allowing children to make their own choice is important. To complete the rhyme that provides the title for this paper, adults must respond to children who wish to explore outdoors and ‘weather the weather whatever the weather, whether they like it or not.’

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the manager and staff of the pre-school setting for making me so welcome and for their interest in this research.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Heather Elliott

Heather was a primary school teacher for 25 years prior to teaching Early years education at York St John University.