This article was downloaded by: [University of Cambridge]On: 14 November 2014, At: 03:21Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Early Childhood EducationResearch JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/recr20

Opening up the outdoors: Exploringthe relationship between the indoorand outdoor environments of a centreAlison Stephenson aa Wellington College of Education , New ZealandPublished online: 15 Jun 2007.

To cite this article: Alison Stephenson (2002) Opening up the outdoors: Exploring the relationshipbetween the indoor and outdoor environments of a centre, European Early Childhood EducationResearch Journal, 10:1, 29-38, DOI: 10.1080/13502930285208821

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13502930285208821

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal Vol. 10, No. 1 2002

29

Opening Up the Outdoors: Exploring The Relationship Between the Indoor and Outdoor Environments of a Centre

ALISON STEPHENSON

Wellington College o f Education New Zealand

SUMMARY" Young children's enthusiasm for outdoor play is widely recognised, but the factors that contribute to it are less well understood. In order to open up new perspectives in this area, a broad, multi-dimensional approach was chosen, and ethnographic methods were used to study outdoor play in a single New Zealand childcare centre setting. This paper describes four broad dimensions of difference that were identified in exploring the relationship between the outdoor and indoor playspaces, and the play that occurred there.

RESUMI~: L "enthousiasme des jeunes enfants pour les jeux de plein air est largement reconnu, mais les facteurs qui y contribuent sont mal connus. Pour ouvrir de nouvelles perspectives dans ce domaine, une approche large, multidimensionnelle, a Ot~ choisie et des m~thodes ethnographiques ont 6t~ utilis~es dans eette Otude du jeu en plein air dans une structure d'accueil de la petite enfance en Nouvelle Z~lande. En explorant la relation entre les espaces du jeu int~rieurs et ext~rieurs et les jeux qui s "y dkveloppent, cet article d~crit quatre principales differences.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG: Die Begeisterung kleiner Kinder J~rs Spielen im Freien ist allgemein bekannt, weniger bekannt sind dagegen die Faktoren, die zu dieser Begeisterung beitragen. Um neue Perspektiven in diesem Bereich zu erschlieflen wurde ein breit angelegter multidimensionaler Ansatz gewdhlt. Mit ethnographischen Methoden wurde das Spiel im Freien in einer Kindertagesstdtte in Neu Zealand analysiert. Dieser Beitrag beschreibt anhand von vier umfassenden Dimensionen den Unterschied zwischen den Spietrdumen im Freien und drinnen und dem Spiel der Kinder in diesen Rdumen.

RESUMEN." E1 entusiasmo de los nihos por eljuego al aire libre es ampliamente reconocido, pero los factores que contribuyen a ~ste no son arm bien entendidos. Para abrir nuevas perspectivas en este 6rea, se ha elegido un mOtodo multidimensional basado en m~todos etnogrcificos. Estos procedimientos fueron utilizados para estudiar eljuego al aire libre en un solo centro de cuidado de nihos de Nueva Zelanda. Este articulo describe cuatro importantes diferencias identificadas al comparar eljuego que se produce al aire libre y en contextos interiores.

Keywords: Outdoor play; Playground; Environment; Ethnographic; New Zealand.

I began with children's enthusiasm for the outdoors, with the cry "let's go outside" that I heard so often in centres when the doors were opened. What is it about playing outdoors that attracts so

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

03:

21 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

30 European Early Childhood Education Research Journal

many children? An investigation of the literature revealed only Henniger's (1985) attempt to de- lineate the differences between indoor and outdoor play, using the Parten and Smilansky categories.

In my own attempt to shed more light on this question, I chose a broader research approach and undertook an ethnographic study of a single New Zealand childcare centre, observing the children indoors and out over a period of five months. The centre catered for children from 0 to 5, and it was chosen because it represented a model of high quality curriculum provision, and be- cause, not unusually for New Zealand, the child-centred programme provided for free flow be- tween the indoor and outdoor environments for most of the day. It seemed that such a situation, where children had extended choice about in which environment they played, would offer the best opportunity for unravelling the differences.

There were six staff and the centre was licensed for 25 children including 5 under twos. The single-storey purpose-built centre was sited at the back of a workplace complex, in an area of grass and trees. The outdoor playspace was a fiat rectangular area containing a sandpit, swings, a large wooden climbing structure with a slide, and a metal climbing frame. A variety of loose equip- ment (such as tricycles, trolleys, tyres, planks, hoops and balls) was available. A wooden deck, covered by a verandah, provided a transition zone between the two environments.

I carried out 38 fieldwork visits to the centre; I ensured the visits covered different times and days of the week, different weather conditions and seasonal differences. Initially I kept fieldnotes but as I judged the children felt comfortable I introduced a camera, a tape recorder and later a video camera. I observed intensively before interviewing the teachers. Data was typed up after each visit, and the concomitant process of ongoing reflection and analysis generated ideas, sug- gested questions, and led to the development of working hypotheses. I began the detailed process of analysis after two months of data collection.

Initial analysis was confusing: each environment encompassed a variety of experiences and behaviours, and some overlapped. Eventually however, through the process of analysing the observations, I was able to identify four broad dimensions which differentiated them. Exploring these, both in this centre and in a more recent study in another centre, has helped me to better understand the passion of some children for being outdoors. While the initial theoretical analysis emerged from the study of a single centre, practitioners may find similar qualities in other early childhood settings.

Most obvious of the dimensions I identifed was that for children, outside was the "look at me" environment, whereas indoors was the "look at what I've made" environment. Later I recog- nised three other dimensions: the outdoors was the environment of change, while indoors was the stable environment; the outdoors was a freer and less controlled environment; and finally, there were subtle but distinct differences in the way teachers and children interacted inside and out. I came to use the words 'open' and 'encompassing' to encapsulate the cumulative effects of the dimensions, and the contrasting qualities of these two environments.

The "look at me" and the "look at what I've made" dimension

Very early I saw a striking difference in the requests for adult attention made by children in the two environments which highlighted a difference in the play. Outside "look at me" focused me on the active physical play occurring; in contrast most of the constructive play, the "look at what I've made" play, took place inside. Finding the significance of the outdoors for physical play was certainly not unexpected. The outdoors is recognised in the literature as the environment for active physical play (Smith & Cormolly, 1972; Henniger, 1985; Hutt, Tyler, Hutt & Christopherson, 1989; Cullen, 1993; Barbour, 1999), but much of this research has been done in settings where there were only brief intervals of outdoor play within the programme. I had not been sure there would be such clear distinctions in this setting where children had prolonged access to the outdoors and indoors simultaneously, and where a wide range of varied learning experiences were provided in both contexts. The teachers recognised the importance of the outdoors for physical play, and their planning for individual children frequently included physical goals they were working on in this environment.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

03:

21 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

A. Stephenson 31

Alex (4 yrs) spent most of a morning making an elaborate mobile at the collage table which he then showed to all the adults, later outside he called to an adult to watch him climbing. Inside Sean (4 yrs) took pride in completing a wooden puzzle; outside he wanted to be watched while he kicked the ball.

Indoors the collage table was the frequent site for drawing and construction activities, the painting easels were well patronised and the plastic construction set was used almost constantly and by all age groups. Outdoors the teachers regularly set up art and construction activities but these were used less intensively. Children did paint at the easels set up on the deck as well as at the indoor easels, but the outdoor table-top clay experience provided daily was rarely used, and car- pentry used only a little more frequently. Sandcastles were frequently built, but were on-going experiences with moats, water and tunnels, rather than finished constructions to be admired. The three year old girls sometimes brought indoor items such as cushions and books out onto the deck as props for their constructed 'houses' or 'picnics' but only the four year old boys used outdoor loose materials (tyres, planks, ladders, etc.) in construction, and the focus was more on transport- ing the heavy items than on the finished 'fort'. Overall, children tended to use art and construction activities intermittently outdoors. This was crystallized for me one morning when two tables were set up with paper and felts. The table outside on the deck was deserted but the table inside was well attended through the morning. Reviewing my observations, it seemed that when children wanted to spend a time of sustained concentration creating a product they chose to work inside, and this use of the indoors as the site for most of the sustained constructive play happened despite staff regularly providing art and construction activities outdoors.

Similarly, while there were moments of physical play inside they were the exception rather than the rule. One wet afternoon Celia set up an indoor challenge course and helped children do forward and backward rolls. More often, however, when children initiated potential "look at me" physical play experiences indoors, safety was seen to be an issue. When Mark (3 yrs) turned a child's chair upside down and stood on top of it, he was asked to get off because he might hurt himself. In contrast, outdoors all the children who were mobile at times used the environment as a setting to practise and extend their physical skills and teachers actively supported and extended this process. For younger children, the steps, the sloping ramp, the rough surface of the grass and the bark chips provided initial challenges; for older children challenges lay in activities such as swinging themselves independently, riding bikes fast and skilfully, kicking balls high and hard, experimenting in using the slide adventurously. While physical play was not the only category of play observed outdoors, it was a very significant one, particularly when children first went out- doors.

The change and stabi l i ty d i m e n s i o n

A more unexpected finding was that the outside was the environment of relative change, and inside was the environment of relative stability. This continuum of change and stability was the second dimension I identified and used in exploring the differences between the two environments.

Underpinning the quality of change were the infinite variations inherent in being outdoors - variations in temperature, light, movement, colour, smell, texture. These are such a fundamental part of being outdoors that their effect is rarely considered but these variations may contribute to increased levels of stimulation (Olds, 1989; Sebba, 1991) and to emotional and spiritual wellbeing (Olds, 1989). It was not easy to identify their influence, but children showed they were aware of them. Clarissa moved to stand in a patch of sunlight after she had been playing in the water trough and called "Come here, it's warm". Tim waited for the wind to stop before he bowled.

The way the outdoor environment was set up also varied. One day the grass area was set up for a soccer game with two road cones as goalposts at either end, the next day it was left empty. One day two easels were set up on the deck with six pots of paints and brushes. Another day, thick sheets of white paper were stapled to the wooden fence and trays of paints, big brushes, and sponges on handles provided nearby.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

03:

21 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

32 European Early Childhood Education Research Journal

The layout of the fixed equipment did not change, but staff found ways to alter this equip- ment. An opened-out cardboard box was stapled to the edge of the low deck to make an enclosure; the zoom slide was up; the rope ladder was tied to the top fence of the wooden structure; the metal climbing frame had a large blue tarpaulin draped over it.

In exploring with staff the striking variability of the outdoor environment, I discovered differences in their approach to the task of setting up, which contributed to the picture of the outdoors as a changing place. Staff agreed they could look at the playground and know immedi- ately who was rostered on to set it up. These differences further contributed to the variability that children experienced outdoors.

Indoors, in comparison, staff made relatively few changes. Just as variation was consid- ered appropriate outdoors, so stability was considered appropriate indoors. Changes that routinely occurred were minor. Bridget, the first to arrive each morning, made small changes - the books or instruments perhaps were set out differently - but the overall layout remained familiar. Staffrecog- nised this distinction between indoors and outdoors. Jan, the supervisor, alluded to the underlying environmental differences.

"Outside it is always different .... Inside, even in winter, it's still sort of a reasonable con- stant temperature, no wind, the atmosphere is always the same."

She described the children lying on the grass and watching the changing shapes of clouds, and commented there was "absolutely nothing" like that inside. She identified other natural elements outside that were not controllable by staff.

"Things outside are different .... You sort of know where to go to dig the worms but you might dig there another day and there might not be any there. Things are never quite the same outside. [In contrast, inside] the dough and collage and all those other sorts of things, even though they're varied or whatever, [are] always there." (Jan)

It was perceived by staff not only to be harder to alter the indoor environment, but also not to be desirable. The basic stability was valued because it gave children the security of knowing where things were when they were new to the centre, and then as they re-settled into the centre every morning.

"I think initially when children walk in they need to have that stability, they need to have that familiar looking place, and when they walk in, they walk in inside." (Sara)

Imogen said of the outdoors "we try and change it round outside because it gets too boring other- wise", but the same concept was not applied inside.

The philosophic difference in approaches was encapsulated when a staff member sug- gested in a meeting that the collage area had become boring and needed to be changed. This was discussed and it was decided this was an adult perception; that for children what was important was not novelty, but the ready availability of a range of equipment and materials which they could access as they needed. In the same meeting, however, staffwere commended for the diversity of ways in which climbing and balancing activities had been presented outside over the last month.

The conventional research finding is that teachers perceive they have little control over the organisation of the outside playspace because of the nature of the equipment (Gilkes, 1987; Bilton, 1993; Davies, 1997; Stine, 1997). This was absolutely not the experience of the teachers in this centre who all reported that they enjoyed the task of setting up equipment outside. This may partly reflect the fact they felt more ownership of the playground, as two of them had been in the centre during the process of redesigning the playground and installing the barkchip area and the climbing structures.

A more important ingredient may be the professional enthusiasm of the staff. They talked frequently about children's interests and development, and were constantly involved in the cycle of observation and planning. Their shared understanding that the outdoor environment would

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

03:

21 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

A. Stephenson 33

change daily offered them opportunities to respond to children's interests and needs in the way they set up that environment.

Finally, setting up also gave staff the chance to express their own creativity. In their inter- actions with children staff were careful to avoid providing models of work, yet they were them- selves creative people. Setting up was one acceptable way in which their creativity could be ex- pressed within the centre setting. Imogen described setting up in the morning as "a neat time", "you get to set up how you want it".

The freedom and control dimension

The third dimension I used to compare the two environments was that of freedom and control; the outdoors was the less controlled environment. Several factors contributed to this.

The routines were centred indoors. When younger children were to be toileted, staff came outside and invited them (with gentle persuasion at times) to come inside to the toilet. Eating typically took place inside. Children could choose when they went in to the rolling morning or afternoon tea, but once inside they needed to wash their hands, at times to wait until a chair was free at the table, and then to stay seated until they had finished. There was a mat-time indoors immediately before lunch in which all the older children were expected to participate. While lunch was always a relaxed and pleasant affair with staff sitting and talking with children, it was never- theless the most controlled event of the day. After lunch the children not sleeping were expected to find quiet activities inside while the others were put to bed.

In contrast there were few controls centred on routines outside. Even putting away equip- ment outdoors tended to be done by staff, with children's assistance welcomed but rarely required. Indoors, in contrast, staff actively encouraged children to assist in the tidying up before lunch, and sometimes individuals were called inside to help, especially if staff were aware they were respon- sible for a particular area of disarray.

Some behaviours were acceptable outside, but not inside. A very clear example of this occurred when Sean (4 yrs) carried a pointed piece of wood through much of an afternoon, but within a few minutes of coming inside he was asked by a staff member, who had also been outside, to put the wood in his locker.

Another example concerned voice level. On the first morning I was in the centre I recorded that Sean (4 yrs), who was being summoned inside for lunch, stood by the open door and gave an ear piercing shriek. The adult commented "That's not very nice" and Tim and Julian (4 yrs) emit- ted similar shrieks. It appeared an act with overtones of defiance - shrieking was acceptable out- side, but not inside - and the boys were not only at the boundary between the two, but were facing indoors.

Staff acknowledged the distinction in levels o f control between the environments, and some referred to it as something they enjoyed. Bridget mentioned "the freedom, like being noisy" as a positive aspect. Imogen said she liked

"The freedom to move the equipment and to just spend time with the kids [in contrast to inside where] you feel like you're always tidying up, you're doing routine stuff, it's morn- ing tea, or you're tidying up for mat-time, nappy changes."

She also mentioned the larger space contributed to her feeling of freedom outdoors. Jan believed the different types of play inside and outside contributed to the distinction.

The inside play she saw as being more "structured", and she used the example of puzzles where "there is a prescribed end result". She added,

"I see some children that seem to be afraid of them .... Like they might quite like to have a go, but there's all that fear that that's how it has to look when you put it back, I mean not that we ever expect that but they could be thinking that."

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

03:

21 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

34 European Early Childhood Education Research Journal

In contrast she saw outdoor activities as more open-ended. Children were freer to transport equipment outdoors than indoors, which reflects the fact

that each piece of indoor equipment had a particular place where it belonged, while outdoor equip- ment was all stored in the shed. When children transported equipment from room to room, it made the task of tidying more difficult. Outdoors, with a single storage area, it mattered less what part of the environment equipment was found in. Younger children frequently transported barkchips, sand and water, the older boys regularly transported the larger movable equipment, and children o f all ages used the wheeled vehicles intensively. Sara identified the outdoor environment as particularly effective in supporting children in their transporting schema (Athey, 1990; Meade & Cubey, 1995).

Another aspect of control was that while children at times were restricted from going out- side (because of the weather, mealtimes, etc), it was extraordinarily rare for a child to be restricted from going inside. In a very unusual example, one child was forced to go outside, and this was done after considerable consultation with his family. Mark (3 yrs) had developed an anxiety of the outdoors which focused apparently on the weekly visit of the rubbish truck. After several weeks in which he refused to go out the door a programme was introduced which involved an adult carrying him outside briefly. After a short time he was again choosing to go outside voluntarily. Other children showed a similar tendency to retreat inside when they were very upset or anxious, some- times climbing into a bed or closing doors and curtains, apparently to enhance their sense of being enclosed (Stephenson, 1998).

There were, of course, some rules and limits outside. "Up the stairs and down the slide" was such a familiar catch-cry that children chanted it. On the zoom slide children were told "the rule is one at a time". Water was hugely popular with many children and at times staff imposed limits: Dean (2 yrs) was told "please don't throw the water", when Jacinta (3 yrs) had the hose she was asked "please keep the water down, you're wetting poor George". Clothing was at times a source of control - in winter it was often sufficiently cold for children to need jackets and in summer children were required to wear sunhats and sunblock.

The only way in which the outdoors seemed significantly more controlled than the indoors was that children were not allowed to help themselves to equipment from the shed. Indoors the environment was organised so that materials were stored at children's height and they were able to help themselves. Staffminimised the effects of this restriction on access to the shed by setting up a wide variety of equipment, by readily bringing out equipment children asked for (even when it was the end of the day and they had just tidied it away), and by closing the shed door when no adult was there.

This finding was not unexpected. The distinction in levels of control has been touched on in previous research literature. There are references to the outside being the freer and noisier environment (Bilton, 1993), and Frost and Dempsey (1990) provide a rare list of the factors that contribute to this: more room to move, running is permitted and so rule-breaking is reduced, more personal space is available and "strains on children's developing social skills are lessened" (p.55), children can be noisier, and messier.

Differences in interactions between adults and children

I recognised the fourth dimension that I used in analysing the relationship between the two envi- ronments after becoming aware o f subtle differences in the interactions between adults and chil- dren indoors and out. There were several aspects to this.

Watching staff coach children in soccer skills - how to dribble, how to defend the goal - raised interesting questions. It seemed that outside staff felt comfortable to ' teach' using more directive strategies (Bredekamp & Rosegrant, 1992) than they considered appropriate inside. Then the distinction blurred when, indoors, I watched Jan teaching M~iori stick games as part of a mat- time, and Celia assisting children to do backward and forward rolls. Jan raised this issue again in an interview. She too perceived there was a difference in the style of teaching inside and out.

"I remember with the shapes that children were crawling through [outdoors], this child desperately wanted to go through there but wouldn't and said "You do it", so we actually

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

03:

21 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

A. Stephenson 35

did it first for the child to get through. We wouldn' t draw a circle because a child couldn't draw a circle."

She also used the example of puzzles.

"When we're doing puzzles, you try and talk children through puzzles when it's difficult. I mean if it's a totally inappropriate puzzle you might help them or get them to put the last few pieces in ... but outside you wouId just help them and facilitate."

My discussion with her suggested that while staff were comfortable to use directive strategies when physical skills were involved, they avoided such techniques in other contexts. Jan described a child who had been "very into letters and writing"; staff had supported this interest because "when we didn't do it for her she was grafitting". Her reservations about the programme however were evident. While she was able to justify it she also acknowledged the hesitation she felt about taking such a "teaching" role indoors.

"Outside, I would feel I 'm not having any impact on, destroying, do you know what I mean, whatever he's got; whereas inside, you're always thinking, now i f I do this what's going to be the spin off or the effects of it".

It seemed that the distinction she was making in teaching styles reflected the fact that physical learning predominated outdoors, and where it did occur inside - forward rolls, stick games - the same more directive, teaching style was used. Staffhowever felt less comfortable with the writing programme. Not only was it occurring inside, but it was occurring within the art area where the concept of modelling for children was considered unacceptable, and it involved skills that staff believed were inappropriate to teach at the early childhood level. The unease of staff reflects a confusion felt by many practitioners whose training reflected a predominantly developmental phi- losophy, and who are now struggling to accommodate the more active adult role implied by socio- cultural theories into their practice (Cullen, 1996). Staff in this centre felt most comfortable with a more directive role in the context of gross motor skills, and this usually occurred outside. They felt least comfortable with such a role in indoor experiences, reflecting perhaps the focus of their original developmentally focused training on such experiences.

Staff perceived there was a difference in the way they participated with children inside and out, and also in the kind of groups that children formed. Imogen said,

"I think if they're outside they're bigger groups, like the older will join with the younger, whereas if they're inside they don't seem to join so much."

Sue, in exploring possible differences, offered a recent example of large group play on the climb- ing structure.

"And you had the likes of Hazel who you know never joins in ... and she had her backpack on and she was going with the kids as well. There must have been about seven or eight children just on top of the fort, like there was ranges in age groups, everything, and the ones that normally don't play together, and they were all together for that little time."

Imogen alerted me to the fact that interactions inside were often physically closer, but added that she did not think she had fewer one-to-one interactions outside. When children sat on an adult's knee this was almost always indoors. This was perhaps partly because adults rarely sat outside, but it also reflects the fact that many of the inside activities allowed for closer contact. Looking at a book together and watching a child do a puzzle tend to be physically closer than throwing them a ball or watching them on the slide.

Books, with a rug and cushions, were often taken outside, particularly by Bridget. How- ever it seemed that inside, reading was often more focused, and that children were less likely to be

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

03:

21 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

36 European Early Childhood Education Research Journal

distracted by events around them. Sara brought new library books and spent 30 minutes looking at a book with Michael (4 yrs), Tim (4 yrs) and Emma (4 yrs). Other children came and went but these three remained and had a long and wide ranging discussion inspired by different pictures in the book. Another morning Bridget read a book about a child whose parents separated to a boy in a similar situation. In both these episodes, the feeling of enclosure and of separation from others that came from being inside, the relative quiet and the lack o f distraction, all contributed to the feeling o f emotional closeness. Such moments of sustained emotional and physical closeness oc- curred more rarely outside.

Two staff commented on differences in their interactions with groups inside and out. Jan found it easier to join groups outside. She believed this was partly because it was more acceptable to join in and work alongside them.

"You can go onto the mat where the children are building with blocks and you sit down and join them and things like that but I just find it easier to go into the sandpit and start digging with them. For some reason it seems more appropriate to do that than to go inside and pick up a crayon and draw."

This in part reflects her reluctance to provide models, and partly her perception that outdoor activities are open-ended rather than closed (Stine, 1997). She also felt that outside it was easier for a child to disassociate themselves from an adult, without having to leave the area.

Celia reported she found it easier to move in and out of children's play outdoors. Indoors,

" they' l l let you join their groups but then I find that they want you to be the leader and take on the role, ahnost like constructing their play. Outside you have the freedom to move in and out ... I don't know why. I just think maybe it's the space."

Reflecting on this Jan agreed that it was probably easier to "sit back" outside. She added " I f you see a teacher writing, they'll often be writing outside rather than inside; it's probably easier to" and suggested this was perhaps because children were more "engrossed" outside. Children might need you for a short time, but then they move on, engrossed in what they're doing. She used the example of one year old George.

"Yes I think that they are not so easily distracted. Whereas I see George and he is totally absorbed with what he's doing at times out there, and ... things can be happening around him and he wouldn't even notice; whereas if he were inside drawing or doing a puzzle, and someone yelled or whatever, he might turn and look and perhaps might veer off to see what they're doing."

She suggested that there seemed to be "more scope for them to extend themselves, set challenges for themselves" in outdoor experiences. Even the dough "doesn' t have the same, setting yourself up for a real challenge".

Both Jan and Sue commented on the ease of identifying what challenged children out- doors. Sue said that she was less aware of a child's progress in an inside activity such as puzzles than she was of their physical achievements outside, and that because of this she tended to cel- ebrate children's achievements more exuberantly outside, because that was where most of the physically active play took place. Jan felt that it was,

"easier to help children when they're taking risks outside than inside - because they're obvious, obvious risks, and you can see that they need help."

As this summary shows, in-depth discussions with staffconfirmed my observations that there was a range o f subtle but distinct differences in the way staff and children interacted outdoors that contributed to the qualitative differences between the two environments.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

03:

21 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

A. Stephenson 37

T h e ins ide as an e n c o m p a s s i n g e n v i r o n m e n t : the out s ide as an o p e n e n v i r o n m e n t

Piecing these thoughts about the two environments together led me to see the inside as an encom- passing environment and the outside as an open environment. I chose these adjectives carefully. 'Encompassing' I used because I wanted to incorporate the concepts of more controls and restric- tions, more activities that tend to be "closed" (Stine, 1997), less variation in the physical environ- ment, with the notion of emotional security inherent in smaller groups, in adults taking familiar roles in routines, in opportunities for physical closeness with an adult, and even in the feeling of secure enclosure that walls can bring. All these together combined to offer children an environ- ment that was both controlling and potentially restrictive but which simultaneously could be expe- rienced as predictable and secure.

The outdoors was qualitatively different. There were fewer restrictions and controls, and activities tended to be more open-ended. Water was once provided as a play material inside, but it was only for washing dolls. Outside water might be provided initially for washing dolls but chil- dren could also choose to use it in other ways, with few restrictions. For children, the physical environment outdoors was unpredictable. Outside there was what Greenman and Stonehouse (1996) call the "vastness, a sense of infinite boundaries" (p.223). Not only did the weather change, but the way equipment was presented changed from day to day, and sometimes even during the day. Unex- pected events occurred beyond the fence. Groups were more fluid outside, and often bigger, and it was easier for children to move in and out of groups. During most of the day adults outdoors were less involved in routines, and so were more likely to be available. Moreover outside adults felt more comfortable to join in and work alongside children. However a child was less likely to have sustained physically close interactions with adults outside, partly because adults rarely sat, and partly because the environment did not offer physical seclusion; outdoors both the child and the adult were constantly aware of events around them. Outdoors there were no walls; children were 'in the open', exposed to the elements, with only a wire mesh fence between them and the wider world. All these factors combined to offer children an environment that could be described as 'open'; open in the sense of accepting and less controlled, of incorporating change and unpredictability, but open also in the sense of lacking the security of enclosure and surrounding walls. They combined to form an environment that could be experienced both as dynamic and open-ended, and yet simultaneously as unpredictable and even threatening.

Exploring the four dimensions of difference I identified, and linking these into the over- arching themes of "open" and "encompassing" has begun the process of identifying some of the factors that make outdoor playspace such a satisfying environment for the play of many young children.

REFERENCES

ATHEY, C. (1990) Extending Thought in Young Children: A Parent-teacher Partnership (London: Chapman).

BARBOUR, A.C. (1999) The impact of playground design on the play behaviours of children with differing levels of physical competence, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 14 (1), 75- 98.

BILTON, H. (1993) The nursery class garden - problems associated with working in the outdoor environment and their possible solutions, Early Child Development and Care, 93, 15-33.

BREDEKAMP, S., & ROSEGRANT, T. (1992) Reaching Potentials: Appropriate Curriculum and Assessment for Young Children (Washington DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children).

CULLEN, J. (1993) Preschool children's use and perceptions of outdoor play areas, Early Child Development and Care, 89, 45-56.

CULLEN, J. (1996) The challenge of Te Whgiriki for future developments in early childhood education, Delta 48 (1), 113-126.

DAVIES, M. (1997) The teacher's role in outdoor play: Preschool teachers' beliefs and practices,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

03:

21 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

3 8 European Early Childhood Education Research Journal

Journal of Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 1, 10-20. FROST, J. L., & DEMPSEY, J. D. (1990) Playgrounds for Infants, Toddlers, and Preschoolers

(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 332 806). GILKES, J. (1987)Developing Nursery Education: From Conflicts Towards Cooperation (Milton

Keynes: Open University Press). GREENMAN, J., & STONEHOUSE, A. (1996) Prime Times: A Handbook for Excellence in Infant

and Toddler Care (St Paul, MN: Redleaf). HENNIGER, M. L. (1985) Preschool children's play behaviors in an indoor and outdoor

environment, in: FROST, J. L. & SUNDERLIN, S. (Eds.) When Children Play: Proceedings of the International Conference on Play and Ptay Environments (Wheaton, MD: Association for Childhood Education International).

HUTT, S. J., TYLER, S., HUTT, C., & CHRISTOPHERSON, H. (1989) Play, Exploration and Learning: A Natural History of a Pre-school (London: Routledge).

MEADE, A., & CUBEY, E (1995) Competent Children and Their Teachers: Learning About Trajectories and Other Schemas (New Zealand Council for Educational Research and Faculty of Education Victoria University of Wellington).

OLDS, A. R. (1989) Nature as healer, Children's Environments Quarterly, 6 (1), 27-32. SEBBA, R. (1991) The landscapes of childhood: The reflection of childhood's environment in

adult memories and in children's attitudes, Environment and Behaviour, 23 (4), 395-422. SMITH, P. K., & CONNOLLY, K. (1972) Patterns of play and social interaction in pre-school

children, in: JONES, N. B. (Ed.)Ethological Studies of Child Behaviour (London: Cambridge University).

STEPHENSON, A. (1998) Opening up the Outdoors: A Reappraisl of Young Children 's Outdoor Experiences. Unpublished Master's thesis, Victoria University of Wellington.

STEPHENSON, A. (1999) Opening up the outdoors: A case study of young children 's outdoor experiences in one childcare centre. Occasional paper no. 4. Wellington: Institute for Early childhood Studies.

STINE, S. (1997) Landscapes for Learning: Creating Outdoor Environments for Children and Youth (New York: Wiley).

Correspondence about this paper should be addressed to:

Alison Stephenson School of Early Childhood Teacher Education

Wellington College of Education PO Box 17-310

Karori Wellington 6005

New Zealand Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

03:

21 1

4 N

ovem

ber

2014