International Journal of Play

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rijp20

How does play in the outdoors afford

opportunities for schema development in young
children?

Pavla Boulton & Amanda Thomas

To cite this article: Pavla Boulton & Amanda Thomas (2022) How does play in the outdoors
afford opportunities for schema development in young children?, International Journal of Play,
11:2, 184-201, DOI: 10.1080/21594937.2022.2069348

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2022.2069348

Published online: 08 Jun 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1470

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rijp20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PLAY
2022, VOL. 11, NO. 2, 184–201
https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2022.2069348

How does play in the outdoors afford opportunities for

schema development in young children?
Pavla Boulton and Amanda Thomas
Faculty of Education and Life Sciences, University of South Wales, Newport, South Wales, UK

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This paper explores children’s use of schemas to construct their Schema; outdoors; loose
knowledge and understanding within the outdoor learning parts; play; affordance theory
environment. It considers how a knowledge of schemas can
facilitate practitioners to inform early years pedagogy. Further, it
examines how the affordance of resources in the outdoors can
nurture children’s schemas. It charts different children’s learning
journeys over two terms and how ‘coming to know’ about their
schemas, facilitated practitioners’ different perceptions, shaping
classroom pedagogy both indoors and outdoors. The research
explores how loose parts and their affordance can nurture
schematic development. Findings suggest that the outdoors
affords greater engagement of the senses, freedom of space,
enabling children to use the ‘loose parts’ in ways that are unique
to them. Movements are greater, creativity is deeper, and
schemas are overtly witnessed during outdoor play, where the
self-governance of the play itself enables schematic development.

Introduction
Since 2008 children aged 3–7 years in Wales have been taught through a play-based peda-
gogy known as the Foundation Phase (FP). A key feature of the Foundation Phase is the
use of the outdoors as a teaching and learning environment. The benefits of being out-
doors and learning actively in nature impact on early childhood experiences and the two
have been connected for decades. The Montessori approach along with Froebel’s work is
an example of this and their influences have shaped the pedagogies used which are an
integral element of early years practice. Their work along with Steiner has been promi-
nent in shaping the curriculum in Wales, where it is emphasised that outdoor space to
play and learn, is essential in supporting children’s holistic development. All children
are expected to have regular access to the outdoor environment as part of their curricu-
lum (WAG, 2009) and the Education and Training Inspectorate for Wales, Estyn (2011)
reported that the Foundation Phase places significant importance on children using the
outdoors to experiment, explore and take risks. Real-life learning opportunities afford
children the ‘everyday adventures’ through which they develop skills for life (Palmer,
2006).

CONTACT Amanda Thomas Amanda.thomas@southwales.ac.uk Faculty of Life Sciences, University of South

Wales, Newport, NP20 2BP
© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PLAY 185

Within this curriculum children are viewed as active meaning makers, constructing
their knowledge, and understanding along a learning continuum with playful supportive
adults (WG, 2015). The ethos of the FP curriculum is that it starts with the child and
builds upon what a child can do, requiring practitioners to have an in-depth understand-
ing of child development (Thomas & Lewis, 2016).
One such way that a child actively constructs their knowledge is through schemas.
Piaget was the first pioneer to identify and discuss schemas as a means of constructing
knowledge and suggested that children organise their knowledge and understanding of
the world into cognitive structures which he called schemas (1953, 1959 and 1970).
Piaget believed that children learned through repeated actions and behaviours on
objects and materials within their environment and through these repeated actions,
working theories are built up and developed. Any new experience is fitted into the exist-
ing schema (assimilation) so that equilibrium is maintained or if the experience is new or
different then the child alters (adapts) their schema to accommodate this new experience.
In this way, new thinking and knowledge are constructed and cognitive gains made.
Other researchers have also shown that schemas facilitate the construction of knowl-
edge and understanding (Arnold, 2015; Atherton & Nutbrown, 2013; Athey, 2007; Brier-
ley & Nutbrown, 2017; Deguara & Nutbrown, 2018). This paper explores children’s
knowledge construction through schemas and how resources such as loose parts in the
outdoor learning environment support this. The research has taken place in one FP
setting in South Wales and presents evidence through photographs and narratives, of
several children’s use of their schemas in the outdoor learning environment.
The research took place over two school terms with children aged between four to five years.
The children were observed and photographed whilst engaging with resources in the outdoors.
Any evidence of schemas was noted and analysed with the practitioners in the setting to look at
ways to support and develop the children’s threads of thinking (Nutbrown, 2011).
In addition, this research also explored the theory of loose parts and how materials
and spaces found in the outdoors, afforded opportunities to facilitate the development
of children’s schemas. This can reconceptualise early years pedagogy to incorporate
the outdoors as part of that pedagogy, and not as a ‘bolt-on’ to learning and play.

The foundation phase

The FP is the current early years curriculum for Wales. It is a play-based curriculum that
espouses to be experiential, child-centred, child-led and takes a holistic approach to child
development (Thomas & Lewis, 2016). FP practitioners are play partners accompanying
children along a learning continuum, and delivery is through a mixture of indoor and
outdoor provision (Welsh Government [WG], 2015).
The curriculum is delivered through continuous, enhanced, and focused provision
across seven areas of learning (WG, 2015). The continuous provision is a constant of
the learning environment on offer, allowing consolidation of skills such as problem-
solving, decision-making, teamwork, and independence through playful activities. In
the enhanced provision, the practitioner adds resources to the continuous provision
based on the observed interests of the children (Thomas & Lewis, 2016). The last part
of the FP model of delivery is the focused tasks, which is the adult-led provision
where new skills are taught (Maynard et al., 2012; Thomas & Lewis, 2016).
186 P. BOULTON AND A. THOMAS

All types of provision are evident in both the indoor and outdoor learning environ-
ments. However, any detailed guidance on including schemas within this model of deliv-
ery is absent from Welsh Government (WG) policy documentation. Furthermore, there
has been little comprehensive training or guidance offered to FP practitioners to develop
their knowledge and understanding of schemas. This can be deemed a missed opportu-
nity for both practitioners and children as by nurturing and nourishing schemas, prac-
titioners can gain an insight into the ways children start to construct their knowledge and
understanding (Arnold, 2015; Athey, 2007; Brierley & Nutbrown, 2017; and Deguara &
Nutbrown, 2018). This enables the practitioner to have a window into a child’s thinking
and to shape the curriculum on offer. It facilitates the adult in supporting the child’s
interests, a key principle that underpins the ethos of the FP (WG, 2015).

Schemas and the outdoors

Piaget has significantly influenced the study of child development. He believed that
knowledge must be invented or constructed by each learner through their actions
(1972), and he was the first to identify and define schemas. However, since Piaget’s
first identification of schemas, there have been many other researchers who have built
upon Piaget’s work starting with Chris Athey. Athey’s seminal work on schemas
within the Froebel Early Education Project (1973–1978) with children aged three to
five years, refined Piaget’s original definition of schemas (Thomas, 2018). She defined
schemas as, ‘a pattern of repeatable behaviour into which experiences are assimilated
and that are gradually co-ordinated’ (Athey, 1990, p. 37). Through a process of detailed
observation and analysis, Athey (2007) drew on the work of Piaget to label and describe
the following specific dynamic schemas:

. Dynamic vertical
. Dynamic back and forth
. Dynamic circular
. Going over and under
. Going round and through a boundary
. Containing and enveloping space

Since Athey’s work, other action schemas have been identified such as positioning and
transformation (Arnold and the Pen Green Team, 2010).
Children benefit in so many ways when practitioners place greater emphasis on the
use of the outdoor environment as a resource for learning (WAG, 2009). Outdoor learn-
ing and play facilitate the development of dynamic schemas as well learning related to
‘real life experiences’. Maynard, Waters, and Clement (2013) identified changes in behav-
iour of children and staff during outdoor play. Staff were more relaxed in their approach
and children were much calmer than they were normally. Therefore, the benefits are tan-
gible for both children and the adults that facilitate learning in outdoor spaces. It is main-
tained that outdoors, children can move more freely, play on a larger scale and experience
at first hand the world around them (Beyer et al., 2015; Bilton, 2002; Ouvry, 2003).
Gardner’s multiple intelligence theory further explains ‘naturalistic intelligence’ or
‘nature smart’ as interpreted by Louv (2009, p. 203), which supports this connection
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PLAY 187

to the outdoor environment in children’s learning and which provides a rich environ-
ment for healthy growth and development (Pickering, 2017). The physical benefits of
children learning outside are plentiful, including developing balance, flexibility, and
coordination. Gross motor movement improves and subsequently continues to
develop bone density, all of which lead to children developing their fine motor skills
enabling them to hold a paintbrush or pencil.
These aspects of physical development cannot be isolated from the benefits to cognitive
development in the early years. This aspect of development may not always be as overt as
that of physical development but there are significant elements of cognition required to
physically, as well as emotionally engage with all that the outdoors affords children.
Open and unstructured play allows a child’s brain to recharge; free play enables children
to think creatively where their actions and ideas are steered by their imaginations (ISM,
2018). In addition, the outdoor world allows children to learn at their level and their pace,
in a way that is less judgemental (Maynard & Waters, 2007). Moore (2015) suggests that
when children acquire ‘secret outdoor spaces’, this can enable children to feel free, inde-
pendent and ‘not being watched’ allows them to be more creative, engaging in activities
and sometimes risks that require higher level thinking.
Opportunities that are afforded by being in an outdoor or natural environment, can
allow children to observe the effects of action on objects or materials (Athey, 1990), in
a way that is different to that of being in indoors. Outside children have the space to
engage in a deeper level of fantasy play and to develop positive dispositions for learning
such as resilience, playfulness, and reciprocity (Ouvry, 2003). The outdoor environment
can stimulate the senses far more than an indoor learning environment (Carson, 1956)
and when senses are heightened learning is magnified and learning experiences are
retained for longer (Clarke, 2006).
Learning through the senses is fundamental in the early years and using all the senses in
the outdoors, helps to build the neural pathways and organise information in the brain for
later reference. The outdoors can offer activities and resources on a larger scale because of
the space available and having the space allows children to develop spatial awareness, as
they are able to move themselves and larger objects around the space. Access to materials
like sand and water, blocks, soil and wood not only provide a vast array of tactile materials
but also encourage visual, olfactory, and auditory combinations to support learning.

Affordance theory
When children play in a space or with an object, they experience it in a unique way.
Rather than its intended purpose, they may view it in terms of its ‘affordances.’ American
psychologist Gibson (1979) suggested that environments and objects within them have
values and meanings that are unique to the person perceiving them. The ‘affordances’
of an object or space are all the things it has the ‘potential to do or be.’
Forman (1994) states that different media have different affordances or capacities for
representing a concept. Forman (1994) identifies some media provide a greater affor-
dance to be transformed and contends that, ‘children learn more deeply when they rep-
resent the same concept in different media’ (Forman, 1994, p. 41). This can be considered
in terms of children’s schemas where they choose varied materials to represent their
schema or threads of thought (Nutbrown, 2011).
188 P. BOULTON AND A. THOMAS

Through different media, children can test out ideas and also design ideas (Forman,
1994). Materials found in the outdoors such as sand, water and large play equipment
can afford children lots of diverse ways to use their schemas to construct their knowledge
and understanding. Atherton and Nutbrown (2013, p. 42) argue that when Athey talked
of ‘content and match,’ where content was chosen to match a child’s schema, this can be
considered ‘Forman’s media and affordance.’
The affordances provided by being in the outdoors are often ‘hidden affordances.’
Gaver (1991) expanded Gibson’s theory and identified that ‘hidden affordances’ offer
the potential for actions to be taken but are not necessarily perceived by individuals
within their environment. One might look at a drainpipe and think, ‘that can be used
for collecting water’; or it could also be used to transport a ball into another object
such as a bucket. Thus, having the freedom of being outdoors to manipulate objects
and use varied materials that engage the senses in a multi-faceted way, affords opportu-
nities for children to develop their schemas. They can construct meaning and knowledge
and understanding of the world, in ways that are personal and unique to them. Thus,
affordances will vary according to the characteristics of the individuals who interact
with the environment. The concept of affordances can therefore account for the
different forms of physical activity and the experiences provided by engaging with the
materials and ‘loose parts’ that are available (Nedovic & Morrissey, 2013).
However, research suggests a tension exists between what EY practitioners would like
to provide for children and their ‘accountability under regulations’ (Little, Hansen Sand-
setter, & Wyver, 2012, p. 307; Sandseter, 2007; Sandseter, 2009). Some regulations such as
those suggested propose the removal of objects such as ‘dangerous’ sticks, large wooden
structures, and tyres, which would otherwise afford opportunities for construction
(Johnson, 2013), and the development of schemas linked to transporting and enveloping,
by creating ‘undisturbed hiding places for play.’ These opportunities are identified as
essential chances for children to develop creativity, independence, and self-governance
(Cobb-Moore & Miller, 2007; Moser & Martinsen, 2010).

Loose parts
Resources and materials deemed as ‘loose parts’ are those that facilitate open-ended play,
so like materials that allow affordance, sand, water, large play equipment, diverse types of
containers and blocks can be regarded as loose part materials. These are becoming more
common in an early years outdoor learning environment.
The introduction of loose parts into children’s play affords significant opportunities
for holistic development but particularly cognitive development.
The theory of ‘loose parts’ was proposed by architect, Nicholson (1971). He described
them as ‘variables’ and included things like materials, smells, gases, fluids and music,
animals and plants all of which he declared children loved to play with and experiment,
becoming ‘inventors.’ Nicholson proposed that loose parts were ‘all the things that satisfy
one’s curiosity and give us the pleasure that results from discovery and invention’ (1971,
p. 30). Nicholson further argued, that in any environment the amount of discovery or
creativity a child gets, is causally linked to the varied materials made available within it.
Loose parts are about real-world learning for all children and young people, they are
objects used outdoors generally because they are either larger, messier, require more
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PLAY 189

space to manoeuvre or are simply found naturally in the outdoor environment. The
process both of introducing them and of playing with them involves collaboration,
sharing, thinking, problem-solving and decision-making where the outcome is evident,
… better play experiences (Play Wales, 2017).
Loose parts like this allow children to develop body awareness and perception of
shape, depth, and size as well as orientation. Children need environments they can
manipulate and where they can invent, construct, evaluate and modify their own con-
structions and ideas through play. Thus, the use of loose parts is a crucial element of
children’s play in the outdoors and objects such as drainpipes, tyres, wheels, buckets,
sticks, and pallets, are all stimuli for creative ideas. These can be used for making pat-
terns, transporting objects, covering objects as well as people, and can indicate how a
child’s brain interprets the world. But the theory of loose parts is about more than
the materials and the objects, it is a theory about democracy and self-governance, indi-
viduals, and groups collaborating to shape their world according to their own vision
(Hobson, 2020).
Thus, when left to their own devices, children will play with whatever is around, it
does not need to be costly and usually comes from the recycling bin or someone’s
garage. Loose parts need to reflect the context of the local community and its culture;
in an urban community pipes and bricks may been seen, in coastal communities
fishing nets might be recycled. Planning is often needed to gather resources and recycled
materials so that worn items can be replaced, and objects remain interesting (Play Wales,
2017). This does require time; however, practitioners need not have anxiety about objects
being damaged or lost; this learning is not about the loose parts, it is about how it affords
richer, deeper play experiences (Hobson, 2020).
Consequently, the properties of different loose parts in the outdoors afford children
unique opportunities to develop and use their schemas. Sand and water can be used to
envelop hands, and both can be used with trajectory schemas to fall downwards. Large
play equipment facilitates positioning schemas and trajectories, containers are carried
and dragged to support transporting schemas, whereas large bricks can be transformed
into horizontal and vertical trajectories.

Materials and methods

This research followed children aged three to five years as they played outdoors. The
research was gathered through photographs and narrative observations with the children.
It explored how the outdoor learning environment and the resources within it, afforded
children opportunities to construct their knowledge and understanding through their
differing schemas.
This research design is that of a case study. Bell (2005) argues a case study approach
is particularly useful and helpful to investigate an issue in more detail. This can be
deemed as the study of the social world or as Bryman (2012, p. 28) states, ‘The
study of the social world requires a different logic of research procedure, one that
reflects the distinctiveness of humans as against the natural order.’ Further, Thomas
(2011, p. 23) contends that case studies are ‘analyses of persons [and] events …
which are studied holistically.’ Therefore, this was deemed the most appropriate meth-
odological approach to take.
190 P. BOULTON AND A. THOMAS

Data gathering and analysis

The research was carried out in one Foundation Phase setting in South East Wales and
data were collected with the children across two school terms. The research evidenced
how children chose spaces and resources in the outdoors that afforded them the oppor-
tunities to use their schemas. However, a limitation of this research is that it was carried
out in one setting and a limitation of a case study methodology is that is can be difficult to
generalise findings (Newby, 2014).
The data were gathered through observations and photographs of children using their
schemas outdoors. Palaiologou (2012), states that narrative observations have the advan-
tage of giving detailed information and allows the observer to capture persistent activities
and focussed behaviours. The annotated photographs supported and supplemented the
narrative observations. Cottle (2016) contends that photographs allow for a rich insight
into the child’s world in the setting; they can provide a representation of a person’s lived
experiences within a given time and environment.
The observations and photographs chosen for this research depict how children selected
resources found in the outdoors that are considered loose parts and had a greater affordance
to facilitate their schemas. The observations and photographs were analysed and interpreted
by the researchers and practitioners through a schematic lens, underpinned with loose parts
and affordance theory to facilitate new understandings. They were supplemented with evi-
dence of the children’s speech indicating their developing threads of thinking (Nutbrown,
2011). This supports the interpretivist epistemological stance taken in this research.

Ethical considerations
The study was granted ethical approval by the university where the authors are based and
adhere to the BERA Ethical guidelines (BERA, 2018). Ethics is according to Greig, Taylor,
and MacKay (2007) about treating participants well prior to data collection, during data
collection and after data collection. Prior to commencing the research, informed consent
was obtained from all the practitioners and parents of the children involved in the
research process. All parents were made aware of their right to withdraw their child’s par-
ticipation at any time. Time was spent in the setting getting to know the children before
any observations took place to establish what Atherton and Nutbrown (2013, p. 66) term
a ‘comfortableness’ between the children and the researcher.
During the research, the children were always asked permission to take their photo-
graphs and all photographs were shown to the children. Further, they were asked if it
was okay for the photographs to be used in the researcher’s work. Although the photo-
graphs were taken by the researcher the consent for use was always given by the children.
The researcher explained that the photographs were to be used to get to know more about
the ways the children liked to learn. If at any time the children indicated, they did not
want to be observed or photographed this was respected by the researcher.
This can be considered as ‘moment by moment’ consent and was an ‘ongoing nego-
tiation’ (EECERA, 2015; Mukherji & Albon, 2015). Ethical protocol, as Greig et al. (2007)
state, should also be considered after data collection. Therefore, all participants were
given pseudonyms (Bell, 2010) and any photographs were anonymised to respect the
children’s privacy.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PLAY 191

Results and findings

The FP setting where the research took place had its own enclosed outdoor space for the chil-
dren. Part of the continuous provision on offer was an outdoor sand tray, large play equip-
ment for the children to explore, a water area with tyres and tubes and a large wooden
climbing frame. The enhanced provision consisted of different resources brought out for
the children to play with, sometimes on request from the children themselves. These con-
sisted of equipment added to the sand and water provision such as sieves, watering cans,
paint brushes or large building blocks to build structures on the outdoor yard.
The following photographs and observations depict the children’s observed schemas
during their outdoor play explorations. The findings have been grouped under the
different schemas observed and are taken from a much larger study carried out as part
of a Ph.D. study (Thomas, 2018).

Dynamic circular schema

Sand can be considered a staple of any early years learning environment. In this study,
there was a large sand tray outside as part of the continuous provision. The children
were given free choice as to what equipment they wanted to add to the sand tray as
part of the enhanced provision and the resources added can be termed loose parts.
Lewis used the sand to explore his dynamic circular or rotational schema (Figures 1
and 2). Arnold et al. (2010, p. 22) describe a rotational schema as ‘twisting, turning or
rolling oneself or objects.’ Lewis spent time scooping the sand into the sieve and watching
it fall through the round holes. He repeated this over and over explaining to anyone that
was nearby that, ‘The sand falls into the round holes and then falls out again.’ On another
occasion, he went straight over to the sand tray and this time he twisted the sieved deep
into the sand. He seemed surprised that the sand appeared inside the sieve exclaiming,
‘Look it’s coming up and out of the holes, look!’
Lewis seemed fascinated with how the sand could push upwards through the round
holes, compared to his earlier explorations when it fell downwards through the sieve.
Again, the affordance of sand to be able to trickle downwards and be pushed upwards,
combined with Lewis’ rotational schema has allowed him to make new connections.
He has discovered that you can force sand both down and up through holes.
Water can also be considered a staple of the outdoors. During this observation,
Lewis chose to paint water circles over the shed, thus supporting his rotational
schema. He spent a long time repeatedly painting all over the shed (Figure 3).

Figure 1. Lewis – rotational schema – watching sand fall through round holes in sieve.
192 P. BOULTON AND A. THOMAS

Figure 2. Lewis ‘twisting’ the sieve into the sand.

Figure 3. Lewis – painting water circles on shed.

Lewis painted both large and small water circles and he gave a running commentary to
the girl with him, ‘Look I have done an O, I can do big ones and small ones.’ Lewis
further added that, ‘It’s ok to do it wrong as it goes away, and I can do it again better.’
Deguara and Nutbrown contended in their research, ‘children’s semiotic drawings
could reflect their schematic understanding and meaning-making’ (2018, p. 6). Here
Lewis has used water to make a letter ‘O’ as a symbol. He has chosen an ‘O’ as it is sup-
portive of his rotational schema. Indoors the practitioners had found it hard to engage
Lewis to sit and do any sort of mark making. They noted his enjoyment in mark
making with water outside and how it afforded him the opportunity and confidence to
make mistakes that disappeared. Forman (1994) argued that an affordance is the relation-
ship between the transformable properties of a given medium and the child’s use of that
property to make symbols. They decided to use other transformable material with Lewis
to encourage letter formation such as coloured sand and clay as any errors could easily be
rectified.
Lewis enjoyed the space of being outside and the side of the shed gave him a bigger
than normal canvas to draw upon and he enjoyed the freedom of being able to draw
big circles. This is the benefit of using the outdoors as it provides more space to move,
a greater sense of freedom (Nedovic & Morrissey, 2013) and children feel less supervised
which results in them being less constrained and more creative in their actions. This
observation also supports the notion that outdoor spaces afford children more opportu-
nities to move more freely, play on a larger scale and experience at first hand the world
around them (Bilton, 2002; Ouvry, 2003; Rivkin, 1995), thus helping to develop schemas
through heightened senses and first-hand experiences.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PLAY 193

Figure 4. Oscar – sand enveloping his hands.

Enveloping schema
Oscar chose to use the sand in a different way to Lewis. He explored his enveloping
schema by repeatedly pushing his hands in and out of the sand. Arnold et al. (2010,
p. 22) define an enveloping schema as, ‘covering oneself, an object or space.’ As Oscar
delved into the sand over and over, he shouted out, ‘Look it is making my hands go
away, look they are all gone.’ He proceeded to pull his hands out of the sand, allowing
the sand to fall off before pushing them back in again (Figure 4).
As stated previously, Forman (1994) identified the different properties of different
media, suggesting some materials provide a greater affordance to be transformed.
Owing to its malleable properties sand could be viewed as such a material and is used
here to envelop Oscar’s hands. Oscar is not using sand in a conventional way, but he
is using it combined with his enveloping schema to make his hands disappear. Oscar
is learning about area and space; he is discovering how deeply he needs to embed his
hands within the sand to make them disappear and how much sand he needs to
envelop his hands.
The practitioners, observing these new discoveries, were able to become play partners
with Oscar. They used supportive language and introduced unfamiliar terms such as,
‘Depth and Area.’ They ensured that the learning continued indoors too with opportu-
nities made for Oscar to draw around his hands onto graph paper to determine their area
linking to mathematical development (WG, 2015).

Dynamic trajectory schema

Water can be termed a malleable material as it can be transformed into different shapes
and be used in different contexts. It can also be considered a loose part as Nicholson
(1971) stated, loose parts are materials which can be moved around, designed, and rede-
signed, and tinkered with. Harri is tinkering with the water and using it in ways that
nourishes his schema.
Harri had been observed using a trajectory schema in his play. A trajectory schema can
be defined as ‘all forms of movement taking place in all directions’ (Athey, 2013, p. 8).
Harri spent hours outdoors at the water station and he was fascinated with pouring
the water into the uppermost tubing and waiting for it to appear at the bottom. He
worked with other children and used different sized and shaped containers to pour
the water into the tubing. On one occasion he poured water from a large white cylinder
(Figure 5) and some of it splashed onto his feet and shoes. Harri turned to the boy behind
194 P. BOULTON AND A. THOMAS

Figure 5. Harri – pouring water through tubes.

him and exclaimed, ‘Silly water, you have wetted my feet.’ The boy behind him laughed
and they watched the water flow down the pipes and come out at the end. Harri explained
to the boy what was happening, ‘The water goes in the top of the yellow bit and then it
runs down here and comes out here.’ The affordance of water has supported Harri’s tra-
jectory schema. Forman (1994) proposed that thoughts could be influenced by the
different properties of a material. Here the ability of water to flow in a downwards tra-
jectory has nurtured Harri’s thinking, and he is eager to explain this to his friend.
Again, the practitioners were eager to build upon this observation as they had noted
that Harri did not regularly engage with other children. The setting benefited from a large
garden and the practitioners gave Harri the role of watering the plants. He was able to
choose different children to work with him and in this way, they encouraged his com-
munication skills and teamwork. Harri was able to use watering cans and a hose pipe
to water the garden and he enjoyed watching the water flow down from the nozzle of
the watering can and out of the end of the hose pipe.
Other outdoor play equipment also afforded another child Amy in using of her trajec-
tory schema. She used the large outdoor bricks combined with her trajectory schema to
build towers, beds, and paths.
Amy had shown evidence of a trajectory and positioning schema in previous obser-
vations and outdoors her favourite play resource was the large bricks. She enjoyed
moving them around the yard and constructing different things with them. Arnold
(2010, p. 22) defines a positioning schema as, ‘children position themselves and
objects in different ways … .’
In Figure 6 she spent all afternoon with another child, building a tall tower telling
everyone, ‘I want the tower to be as tall as me, how many bricks will that be?’ The
other little girl seemed to think and replied, ‘This many’ and held up five fingers. Amy
started to count aloud, ‘1, 2 3 … .’ She kept counting till she got to twenty and said,
‘We will need that many to be as tall as me.’ Amy carried on building the tower until
it was taller than herself. She called the practitioner over and they counted the bricks
together to see how many bricks tall Amy was. Nutbrown (2011) believed that vertical
trajectories assist in developing knowledge of height and Amy’s play with the bricks
seemed to support this.
Another time Amy was playing with the bricks again. This time she was positioning
the bricks horizontally (horizontal trajectory) and when she finished, she laid on top
of them and closed her eyes (Figure 7). When the practitioner asked her what she was
doing she said, ‘I am sleeping, I am tired, and this is my long bed.’ In both these obser-
vations Amy has used her trajectory and positioning schema to assimilate knowledge
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PLAY 195

Figure 6. Amy – combining trajectory and positioning schemas – building a vertical tower taller than
herself.

around height and length. Selbie and Wickett (2010) state that when play is encouraged
children can learn through exploration and self-discovery. Amy is exploring her schemas
and mathematical development in discovering how tall she is and how long she is (WG,
2015).
On a different occasion Amy was playing outdoors with the bricks again, alongside
another child (Figure 8). They spent time constructing a long path that stretched to the
fence. They were chattering to each other and Amy was saying, ‘It’s a path to a secret
place.’ I wandered over and asked them what they were doing. Both children con-
sidered this for a moment and then Amy replied, ‘It is a path to Space.’ The other
child with her jumped up and down and agreed laughed saying, ‘Yeah it goes to
Space, up and up.’
Prior to this observation, the children had been reading a book about aliens and
space. Amy had used her imagination alongside her trajectory and positioning
schema to ‘build a path to space.’ This resonated back to her earlier play with the
bricks where she was interested in height and length and now, she had built a path
that goes ‘up and up.’ Athey (2007, p. 113) argued that children choose activities
based on, ‘commonalities and continuities (‘cognitive constants’). Here Amy has con-
tinued with her theme of distance and height and has used the bricks to pursue her
forms of thinking (Atherton & Nutbrown, 2013). Bricks are the loose parts that
allowed Amy to continue her thinking about height and length and the outdoors
afforded her the space to do this.
Bricks, whilst not malleable materials, can be transformed via a child’s imagination
and the space outdoors supports this as Amy refers to her ‘secret place.’ This could

Figure 7. Amy – making a long ‘bed’.

196 P. BOULTON AND A. THOMAS

Figure 8. Amy helping to make a path to space.

indicate the need to be away from prying eyes; a space which enables imaginative think-
ing. It could also illustrate children’s capacity to construct places to provide time alone to
make meaning of their world (Moore, 2015). It also connects with Tuan’s empirical work
(1977) which maintains that we give a ‘place’ meaning and become connected and
attached to it through lived experience and in this, children become emotionally attached
to their place; their space.

Positioning schema
The outdoors also benefited from a large fixed wooden play frame with rope tunnels and
wooden bridges. During several observations, David had shown evidence of a positioning
schema which can be defined as stated previously, positioning oneself and ‘objects in
different ways,’ leading to different views of the world (Arnold et al., 2010, p. 22).
David always gravitated towards the play frame when outdoors and today he immediately
ran to the rope tunnel and hung upside down laughing. He encouraged his friend to join
him by shouting, ‘Look at me I am a cheeky monkey, I can see sky and the ground’
(Figure 9).
On a different occasion David once again went straight over to the rope tunnel but this
time he chose to climb on top (Figure 10). The children had been studying pirates as part
of their topic for the term and once on top David exclaimed, ‘I am Pirate Pete on top of
the crow’s nest’ (The children had read a Pirate book earlier that week as part of focused
provision). Athey (2007), Nutbrown (2011) and Atherton and Nutbrown (2013) argue
that motor actions such as the above form the foundations for cognitive development,
linking actions to thoughts.
David’s positioning schema could result in him developing an understanding of how
things look differently depending on the angle of interpretation. Here it could be argued
that David is combining the physical actions of positioning his body on top of objects to
facilitate a different viewpoint. David was also able to recall the story he had read and
used his schemas to pretend to be a pirate. Athey (1990, p. 68) discusses thought as
‘where a child gives a verbal account of an experience in the absence of any … reminder
of the original experience.’ Here David has transformed the rope bridge into the crow’s
nest. As Forman and Fosnot (1982) stated children need rich learning environments that
support active exploration, discovery but also challenge thinking. The rope tunnel has
afforded David the opportunity to imagine he was on a crow’s nest.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PLAY 197

Figure 9. David hanging upside down from the rope tunnel.

The practitioners observed David’s actions with some concern but allowed him the
time to pretend to be the ‘cheeky monkey’ and ‘Pirate Pete.’ They spent time with
David after these observations in PE sessions setting up obstacle courses where
David could climb over and under equipment. They reinforced his schematic interests
in using positional vocabulary such as, above, below, beneath, and over. Here
the practitioners are engaging in what Athey (2007, p. 152) terms ‘precise language’
to nurture and nourish his schema. David enjoyed being able to use the large
outdoor equipment in a way that allowed him to assimilate content into his form
of thinking or schema. He was building up a working knowledge of how to
support his weight, how to balance and a developing perspective of how things
look from different angles.
Although the outdoor play frame was not a loose part as defined by Nicholson (1971)
or a malleable material in terms of affordance (Forman, 1994), it did lend itself to be
transformed through David’s imagination and creativity. David used it to view his
world from different or unusual perspectives.
Here, the outdoors provided the space needed for David to move around more freely,
and the size of the resources as well as the unstructured approach meant that he could
steer his imagination and engage with higher thinking skills as described by Moore
(2015). The physicality of the play is magnified by its situation outdoors. The scope
for physical development is heightened due to the types of materials and the space
afforded by being outdoors, so that gross motor development is supported by climbing
and hanging ‘over and under.’ This cannot be isolated from the cognitive development
that occurs, although it may be less overt (ISM, 2018), but can also be seen and heard
in the use of language and communication used.

Figure 10. David climbing on top of rope tunnel.

198 P. BOULTON AND A. THOMAS

Conclusion
Schemas are an essential element of children’s development, they are a key cognitive
process through which they construct knowledge and actively make meaning of the
world around them (Piaget, 1953). The results indicate, through the many observations
conducted, that children will choose to engage with loose parts as a significant part of
their play if the opportunity is provided, especially when accessed in an outdoor environ-
ment. The space available enables holistic development to occur, where cognitive
(including language), creative and physical development appear to be enhanced by the
diverse ways that the children engage with the loose parts. They each perceived the
objects from different perspectives and used them in different ways to support their
schemas. This facilitates opportunities for new skills and knowledge to be assimilated
as children learn through discovery.
When children are engaged in play outdoors, they experience a greater sense of
freedom (Maynard et al., 2013) and a sense of more available space facilitates this, there-
fore the children are more active, moving more vigorously than they would indoors.
Access to loose parts that are portable seems to encourage this further, and they are
used and placed in different ways. Children ‘tinker’ with the objects available to them,
taking them into places, spaces, and orientations outdoors that would be difficult to repli-
cate indoors. This encourages language to be enhanced as children appear to express
themselves more willingly, explaining and sharing their ideas, telling stories about
their loose parts and what they represent. In addition, they use their bodies more phys-
ically to make sense of their experiences, facilitating their schemas.
This may also be connected to the child-led pedagogy that materialises when children
engage in outdoor play with loose parts. Practitioners seem more willing to step back and
interfere less (Maynard & Waters, 2007) and consequently, this affects the ways that chil-
dren play. It becomes more self-directed play and children are aware of being ‘less-
watched.’ The need to create their own play spaces comes to the fore and thus creativity
is embraced along with self-governance of the play itself (Moore, 2015).
Being outdoors also affords a much more heightened use of the senses (Carson, 1956)
and as such enables children to use the outdoor environment and materials [loose parts]
in ways that have meaning and value that are unique to the child perceiving them
(Gibson, 1979). Thus, for each child, the loose parts represent different things like the
bricks represented ‘a bed’ or a ‘secret path.’

Recommendations
Although this research has taken place in one FP setting, the use of the outdoors and the
resources provided are not unique but are a staple of any FP learning environment. FP
practitioners need to be aware of schemas and schemas need to be part of educational
policy in Wales. This is especially timely with the new curriculum for Wales being
rolled out next year (September 2022). Practitioners have more autonomy to design
their new curriculum based upon learners’ needs and there is an opportunity to
include schemas as another way to support young children’s learning.
A recommendation would be to consider adding more loose parts to the outdoor area
such as real house bricks for the children to play with. Here Amy could get to feel the
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PLAY 199

weight of bricks and learn about how best to position them to make a stable tower or
path. Practitioners could consider adding more natural resources such as plastic gutter-
ing and string so the children can create their own water stations in different areas of the
outdoors. Further research could include the children taking their own photographs of
their play actions and spaces (mosaic approach). Then with a growing awareness of
schemas, practitioners could work alongside children to include resources and play
spaces that facilitate their preferred schemas.
This research also recognises the importance of the role of loose parts in the outdoor
environment to facilitate the development of schemas. In addition, practitioners need to
recognise how access to loose parts can enhance holistic development, due to the affor-
dances that they offer each individual child. Practitioners do not need to teach children
how to play with loose parts, but just need to step out of the way, enabling children’s
imaginations to nurture their schemas. This in turn will further engage children in
their learning, support their interests and their ongoing development – thus providing
an authentic holistic pedagogy for our youngest learners.

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

Notes on contributors
Amanda Thomas is a senior lecturer in early years education at the University of South Wales.
Pavla Boulton is a senior lecturer in early years education at the University of South Wales.

ORCID
Pavla Boulton http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3559-0392
Amanda Thomas http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4048-0347

References
Arnold, C. (2015). Schemas: A way into a child’s world. Early Child Development and Care, 185(5),
727–741. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2014.952634
Arnold, C. and The Pen Green Team. (2010). Understanding schemas and emotion. London: Sage.
Atherton, F., & Nutbrown, C. (2013). Understanding schemas and young children. London: Sage.
Athey, C. (1990). Extending thought in young children: A parent-teacher partnership. London: Paul
Chapman.
Athey, C. (2007). Extending thought in young children: A parent-teacher partnership (2nd ed.).
London: Sage.
Athey, C. (2013). Chapter 1 : Beginning with the theory about schemas. In C. Arnold (Ed.), Young
children learning through schemas (pp. 5–16). Routledge.
Bell, J. (2005). Doing Your Research Project: A Guide for First-Time Researchers in Education,
Health and Social Science (4th ed.). Open University Press
Bell, J. (2010). Doing your research project (5th ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Beyer, K., Bizub, J., Szabo, A., Heller, B., Kistner, A., Shawgo, E., & Zetts, C. (2015). Development
and validation of the attitudes toward outdoor play scales for children. Journal of Social Sciences
and Medicine, 133, 253–260.
200 P. BOULTON AND A. THOMAS

Bilton, H. (2002). Outdoor play in the early years: Management and innovation (2nd ed.). London:
David Fulton.
Brierley, J., & Nutbrown, C. (2017). Understanding schematic learning at two. London:
Bloomsbury.
British Education Research Association. (2018). Ethical guidelines for educational research.
London: BERA.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carson, R. (1956). A sense of wonder. New York: Harper Collins.
Clarke, S. (2006). Mills and Millipedes. Benefits of using urban settings for outdoor learning activi-
ties. Synergy Learning. Retrieved from: http://www.synergylearning.org
Cobb-Moore, C., & Miller, M. (2007). Chapter 7: Contemporary research in early childhood edu-
cation. In J. Ailwood (Ed.), Early childhood in Australia – historical and comparative contexts
(pp. 94–110). Australia: Pearson Education.
Cottle, M. (2016). Involving children in ethnographic research using photographs: Reflecting on the
development of participatory visual research methods in an English primary school. Sage. http://
methods.sagepub.com.ergo.southwales.ac.uk/base/download/Case/children-ethnographic-phot
ographs-participatory-visual-primary-school
Deguara, J., & Nutbrown, C. (2018). Signs, symbols and schemas: Understanding meaning in a
child’s drawings. International Journal of Early Years Education, 26(1), 4–23.
EECERA. (2015). Ethical code for early childhood researchers [Online]. Retrieved from: http://
www.eecera.org/documents/pdf/organisation/EECERA-Ethical-Code.pdf
Estyn. (2011). Outdoor learning: An evaluation of learning in the outdoors for children under five in
the foundation phase. Cardiff: Crown copyright.
Forman, G. (1994). Different media, different languages. In L. G. Katz, & B. Cesarone (Eds.),
Reflections on the reggio emilia approach (pp. 41–54). New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Elementary Early Childhood Education.
Forman, G., & Fosnot, C. (1982). The use of Piaget’s constructivism in early childhood education pro-
grams. In B. Spodek (Ed.), Handbook of research in early childhood education (pp. 185–211). New
York: Free Press.
Gaver, W. (1991). Technology affordances. In CHI ‘91. New Orleans. United States. [Conference
or Workshop Item]. doi:10.1145/108844.108856.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Greig, A., Taylor, J., & MacKay, T. (2007). Researching with children (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Hobson, T. (2020, November 19). Integrating loose parts play in a preschool program. Edutopia.
Retrieved from: https://www.edutopia.org/article/integrating-loose-parts-play-preschool-
program?utm_content=linkpos5&utm_campaign=weekly-2020-11-18&utm_source=edu-legac
y&utm_medium=email
International School of Macaco (ISM). (2018, May 28). Outdoor play and child development.
Retrieved from https://tis.edu.mo/news/outdoor-play-and-child-development
Johnson, P. (2013). Schoolyard geographies: The influence of object-play and place-making on
relationships. Review of International Geographical Education Online, 3(1), 77–92.
Little, H., Hansen Sandsetter, E. B., & Wyver, S. (2012). Early childhood teachers’ beliefs about
children’s risky play in Australia and Norway. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 13
(4), 300–316.
Louv, R. (2009). Last child in the woods. London: Atlantic Books.
Maynard, T., Taylor, C., Waldron, S., Rhys, M., Smith, R., Power, S., & Clement, J. (2012).
Evaluating the foundation phase: Policy logic model and programme theory.Welsh
Government. Social Research number:37/2012. http://wales.gov.uk/docs/caecd/research/
130318-evaluating-foundation-phase-policy-logic-model-programme-theory-en.pdf
Maynard, T., & Waters, J. (2007). Learning in the outdoor environment; a missed opportunity?
Journal of Early Years, 27(3), 255–265.
Maynard, T., Waters, J., & Clement, J. (2013). Moving outdoors: Further explanations of ‘child-
initiated’ learning in the outdoor environment. Education 3-13, 41(3), 282–299.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PLAY 201

Moore, D. (2015). The teacher doesn’t know what it is, but she knows where we are: Young chil-
dren’s secret places in early childhood outdoor environments. International Journal of Play, 4
(1), 20–31.
Moser, T., & Martinsen, M. T. (2010). The outdoor environment in Norwegian kindergartens as
pedagogical space for toddlers’ play, learning and development. European Early Childhood
Education Research Journal, 18(4), 457–471.
Mukherji, P., & Albon, D. (2015). Research methods in early childhood (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Nedovic, S., & Morrissey, A. (2013). Calm active and focused: Children’s responses to an organic
outdoor learning environment. Learning Environment Research, 16, 281–295. doi: 10.1007/
s10984-013-9127-9
Newby, P. (2014). Research methods for education. London: Routledge.
Nicholson, S. (1971). How not to cheat children-the theory of loose parts: Retrieved November from
https://media.kaboom.org/docs/documents/pdf/ip/Imagination-Playground-Theory-of-Loose-
Parts-Simon-Nicholson.pdf
Nutbrown, C. (2011). Threads of thinking schemas and young children’s learning (4th ed.). London:
Sage.
Ouvry, M. (2003). Exercising muscles and minds. London: National Children’s Bureau.
Palaiologou, I. (2012). Child observation (2nd ed.). Sage.
Palmer, S. (2006). Toxic childhood: How the modern world is damaging our children and what we
can do about It. London: Orion Books.
Piaget, J. (1953). The origins of intelligence in the child (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Piaget, J. (1959). The language and thought of the child. London: Routledge.
Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. London: Longman.
Piaget, J. (1972). The principles of genetic epistemology. London: Routledge.
Pickering, S. (2017). Teaching outdoors creatively. London: Routledge.
Play Wales. (2017). Resources for playing-providing loose parts to support children’s play. Cardiff:
Author.
Rivkin, M. (1995). The great outdoors: Restoring children’s right to play outside. Washington, DC:
National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC).
Sandseter, E. B. H. (2007). Categorising risky play – how can we identify risk-taking in children’s
play? European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 15 (2), 237–222. Doi: 10.1080/
13502930701321733
Sandseter, E. B. H. (2009). Children’s expressions of exhilaration and fear in risky play.
Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 10(2), 92–106. http://www.wwwords.co.uk/rss/
abstract.asp?j=ciec&aid=3593&doi=1
Selbie, P., & Wickett, K. (2010). Providing an enabling environment. In R. Parker-Rees, C. Leeson,
J. Willan, & J. Savage (Eds.), Early childhood studies (3rd ed. pp. 85–98). Exeter: Learning
Matters.
Thomas, A. (2018). Exploring the role of schemas within the Welsh Foundation Phase curriculum
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of South Wales.
Thomas, A., & Lewis, A. (2016). An Introduction to the foundation phase: Early years curriculum in
Wales. London: Bloomsbury.
Thomas, G. (2011). How to do your case study: A guide for students and researchers. London: Sage.
Tuan, Y.-F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. London: The University of
Minnesota Press.
Welsh Assembley Government (WAG). (2009). The foundation phase outdoor learning handbook.
Cardiff: Crown copyright.
Welsh Government. (2015). Revised framework for children’s learning in the foundation phase aged
3-7 years. Cardiff: Welsh Government.