OFFICIAL DISSERTATION 2016

Student Name: Salma Begum
Student Number: B3007712
Module: Dissertation (Working with Children, Young People & Families)
Tutor: Richard Martin
Sheffield Hallam University
BA (Hons) Working With Children, Young People & Families
Undergraduate Research Project
Salma Begum
How does outdoor risky play help with the social development
of young children?
Completed On May 20th 2016

Acknowledgements
I would like to take this opportunity to say how proud I am of myself for being able to
go through with my research project after much hesitation and pushing myself to
strive for higher learning throughout these last 3 years at university, which have been
a challenge however I have managed to overcome my fears and have come this far
solely due to my courage and endless grafting.
**************
Finally I dedicate this work especially to my mum and sister Shumeya who have
supported me and provided me with unconditional support throughout my time at
University. It is with their sheer blessings that I have been able to make it this far.
Being the second child to go into higher education, I am sure that they will be proud
of me.
‘I lost my mind and here is the result’
Salma Begum
******************************************************

Contents
Acknowledgement……………………………………………………………Page 2
Abstract………………………………………………………………………. Page 4
Introduction………………………………………………………….Page 5-6
Definition & Background……………………………………………………. Page 7-9
Literature review……………………………………………………………. .Page 10-34
Methodology…………………………………………………………………. Page 35-40
Research analysis…………………………………………………………....Page 41-45
Recommendations for practice……………………………………………. .Page 46-50
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….Page 51
Appendices…………………………………………………………………....Page 52-70
Bibliography……………………………………………………………………Page 71-79

Abstract:
The purpose of this dissertation is to review empirical and theoretical literature
concerning outdoor risky play and how this helps with the social development of
young children. This paper begins by exploring outdoor risky play and its historical
context and defining social development from qualitative research. Secondly by
using qualitative research for reviewing, key themes have been identified, critiqued
and discussed in relation to the impact of outdoor risky play and social development.
The final section of this paper is a discussion on additional proposals and
suggestions for future recommendations of practice.

Introduction
This dissertation will be focusing on how risky play helps with the social development
of young children It will mainly be focusing on this from an outdoor-play perspective
and it will be looking at the different aspects of it such as the empirical literature that
supports this and looking how they were conducted, to opposing approaches and
research towards outdoor risky play. It will be looking at the benefits of outdoor risky
play and how it impacts children as well as taking into account and exploring the
parental perspective and whether this impedes or encourages the child’s ability to
engage within risky play. Some of the key authors within this dissertation are Knight
(2009) Reggio Emilia in Thornton and Bruton (2007) and Beate and Sandseter
(2009).
According to Knight (2009), before the nineteenth century, there was no link between
education and the outdoor environment, children did spend a lot of time outdoors;
however, when they did it was a part of their normal lives. The skills that they
acquired were life skills related to food the economy and household chores and not
beneficial in honing their motor and social skills (Knight, 2009), upper-class families
were in crowded cities which meant that their children also had limited access to
open outdoors and in most cases play related activities were provided to them from
the comfort of their home (Knight, 2009). Knight (2009) says that this prevented
children from exploring and differentiating between indoor and outdoor based risks
associated with play hence, in the nineteenth century, educationalists and health
professionals started looking into the effects of not having access to the outdoor
environment (Knight, 2009). Joyce (2012) refers to the work of Ariès (1962) who
argues that the concept of outdoor learning did not exist in the medieval times due
the perspective of children being viewed as young adults and therefore risky play
was not an imperial part of children’s lives as they mainly took part in house-hold
chores (Aries, 1962 in Joyce, 2012). Hanawalt (1993) on the other hand argues that
children were viewed separately to adults and they did have some integration with
the outdoor environment however this was limited due to parent’s lack of
understanding of the benefits. Similar to Knight (2009), Hanawalt (1993) claims that

children were integrated to the outdoors to a certain extent but this was mainly due
to work purposes such as gathering logs and harvesting which suppressed their
creativity. For children from privileged backgrounds, being outdoors was for luxury or
leisure purposes (Hanawalt, 1993).
Soon after, the industrialisation workers and their families had to move into suburban
inner cities which were soon converted into slums and therefore meant that these
families had very limited access to fresh air and a healthy and an open outdoor
environment (Hanawalt, 1993). Janni and Taplin (2012) refer to the Waldorf Steiner
approach who discusses his early experiences of how children spent a lot of time
outside because many of them did not have toys and therefore they played with
things such as woodcutters, collecting berries and fruits which did expose them to
some risk because they played as they worked and built their confidence around
adults, this is similar to what Knight (2009) and Hanawalt (1993) claim about children
being in the outdoors for house hold chores. Although children can learn in varied
ways including stressful situations, Taylor et al (2004) claims that learning which
occurs in a playful and risky environment is good for children because it promotes
fondness of their learning experiences as they cherish the difficulties after
overcoming them and like to mention and reminisce their mistakes because it gives
them the satisfaction that they overcame difficult situations (Taylor et al., 2004).

Background:
I have chosen to base my research on this topic because it is something I am
passionate about. One of my placements was based around children’s play
concentrating on their developmental characteristics, which primarily focussed on
children and young people taking risks in play in an outdoor environment. Thus, my
interest grew in this field to determine what perception theorists have of this. I would
also like to explore whether risky play in the outdoors could help children in the long
term, in regards to promoting confidence, which could help me in future practice.
This research topic also relates to my personal experiences in an empirical way. As a
child, I was very quiet, shy and reserved. I was afraid of many things and therefore I
restricted myself from joining in with risky play within the outdoors. However, the
more I grew older, I noticed the benefits of being exposed to some risks and I believe
that it helps people grow in confidence.

Definition:
Outdoor risky play is subsumed with physical activity and is defined as being thrilling
and exciting and there is risk of physical injury. Outdoor risky play falls into the
category of involving; height, speed, dangerous tools or near danger elements such
as falling into something and something children can become immersed in, and it is
said to be biologically based providing an evolutionary contribution to development
(Brussoni et al, 2012). Furthermore, Little (2015) defines outdoor risky play as an
endless spectrum of behaviours that are socially constructed by the child and
outdoor risky play involves making choices about alternate courses of action where
there is uncertainty about the outcome, it is also said to provide autonomy, being
seen as having the right to be involved in decisions that affect them and to make a
difference in their own life (Little, 2015).
For children, outdoor risky play is the key to healthy physical development. Outdoor
risky play is also important for children’s confidence building as it involves children
getting involved in different tasks such as playing in groups and speaking to other
children. They also get to observe other children and try the activities themselves
through replicating their peers. Children can receive both verbal and physical
encouragement in the process of risky play which helps encourage their motor skills
(Eric, 1999). Restricting risky play will mean that children are not familiar with risks
and therefore will not know how to react to risks if they are ever exposed to them,
therefore risky play can be perceived as a defence mechanism at pre-school. And
thus along with play and fun, through outdoor risky play, children very often gain life
skills that are very valuable to them.
In accordance to Huston (2002), social development involves learning the values,
knowledge and skills that enable children to relate to others effectively and to
contribute in positive ways to family, school and the community, it is passed on to
children by carers or a learning environment, also this can be indirectly through
social relationships and participation in the culture around them. Through their

rapport with others and their growing awareness of social values children build a
sense of who they are, as children develop socially, they both respond to inﬂuences
around them.

Literature Review:
Physical features:
In terms of physical developmental outcomes in outdoor risky play, the risk' in
children's play is primarily focused on the physical features of play such as unstable
surfaces, sharp edges and the maximum fall heights (Little, 2006). Research by
Beate and Sandsetter (2009) shows that a lack of supervision is one of the causes of
children facing risks and injuries. Beate and Sandseter (2009) also discuss that
adults should have a pedagogical responsibility of letting children get involved in
risky play, however they have the responsibility of making the experience as safe as
possible to reduce harms for children and this can be done by informing and
educating children about how to be aware of risks, how to manage them and the
consequences of knowingly getting themselves into harmful behaviour giving them
the freedom to explore their environment and physical capacity (Beate and
Sandseter, 2009). A national policy that supports this is the Early Years Foundation
Stage (EYFS) (DfE, 2016) which states that there are four main themes that
underpin all the guidance needed to support a child in learning through play. They
are; A Unique Child, Positive Relationships, Enabling Environments and
Development. One of the relevant themes that focus on risky play is ‘Enabling
Environments’, this theme under the policy states that children in the early years
should be offered environments in which they can learn to work with others and
respect them, the environments should offer stimulating yet safe resources that will
enable children to explore, and they should also support children through playful
strategies to take risks such as though verbal encouragement of their guardian (DfE,
2012).
In contrast to what Beate and Sandseter (2009), Ugur Baysal, Oz and Gokcay
(2012) say that too much supervision can be negative for children in outdoor risky
play, otherwise the person supervising may premeditate what defines a risk and
prevent children from accessing them, as outdoor risky play on the child’s terms
helps to build physical resistance but too much supervision may lead to dependence
on others, which is believed to delay their cognitive development, physically by being

unable to engage with risk and mentally by not being able to conceive risk. (Ugur
Baysal, Oz and Gokcay, 2012), believes that for the well-being of the child and their
ability to assess their physical capacity through play, supervision should be kept to a
minimum however adults and children should be updated on injury awareness.
Critique:
Source: Critical Thinking (2008)-Figure 3: Critical Questions
Focussing on the work of Beate and Sandseter (2009), the paper is about outdoor
learning, specifically taking risks and the impact that this has on young children by
taking into consideration their social development and the further implications that
experiencing outdoor risk can have on other aspects of young children’s education
which is cited in the paper abstract for readers. Research by Ugur Baysal, Oz and
Gokcay (2012) is about outdoor risky play and social ramifications on young children
however it expands further by talking about risk awareness of young children and the
actions they may take to make their play experience thrilling yet also taking into
account injury prevention, also this paper is more specific because the paper states
the age group it will be focussing on, which is between the ages 0-5 years, which
Beate and Sandseter (2009) did not specify, which could be vague to its reader.
In terms of context, for Beate and Sandseter & Ugur Baysal, Oz and Gokcay (2012)
this is based in a play context, however neither paper was specific clarifying play to
be within a home or educational environment, but both papers consistently mention
the importance of adult supervision occasional which leaves the question of context
open to interpretation, nevertheless the theme and context of children’s
independence and social development associated with outdoor risky play is
consistent.
The main topics to be explored within the research by Beate and Sandseter (2009)
was to determine what risks make play risky and what elements of risk and danger in
play motivates children to try them again, thus affecting their social development and
the importance of adult supervision, Ugur Baysal, Oz and Gokcay (2012) on the
other hand focus on topics such as why too much adult supervision can be
disempowering and the significance of letting children have independence with

outdoor play related risk and expends beyond Beate and Sandseter (2009) by
discussing cognitive development in addition to social development adding a new
dimension to the field of benefits that outdoor risky play can have.
In terms of credibility, the paper by Beate and Sandseter (2009) is by Ellen Beate
and Hansen Sandseter who are the lead authors of the research and the paper cites
that the paper was written and conducted at Queen Maud University College Of
Early Childhood Education which suggest that the authors could be teachers of
researchers at the institution however it is implied and not inferred for its audience.
Ugur Baysal, Oz and Gokcay (2012) have credibility in their paper because the
research is cited to have been written at Eylul University Childrens Hospital in
Balcova, Turkey and they reference sources such as UNICEF which could imply that
the writers and experts in their field.
In terms of how both research papers works in practice, Beate and Sandseter (2009)
do this by talking in depth about supervision and adult practicality in children risky
play, an example of this is the extract where Beate and Sandseter (2009) say ‘adults
should have a pedagogical responsibility of letting children get involved in risky play,
however they have the responsibility of making the experience as safe as possible to
reduce harms for children and this can be done by informing and educating children
about how to be aware of risks, how to manage them and the consequences of
knowingly getting themselves into harmful behaviour giving them the freedom to
explore their environment and physical capacity’. The research of Ugur Baysal, Oz
and Gokcay (2012) works in practice by focussing on children’s independence and
how limited adult supervision is positive for children’s social development in outdoor
risky play, which could also be seen as a guide for readers by saying ‘too much
supervision may lead to dependence on others, which is believed to delay their
cognitive development, physically by being unable to engage with risk and mentally
by not being able to conceive risk’. Both papers are good for recommending how the
research works in practice, although this is in contrasting contexts, for and against.

In terms of how the research occurred, for Beate and Sandseter (2009) this
happened by observing and videotaping 2 Norwegian Preschool over the duration of
18 days over 5 months which led Beate and Sandseter (2009) to form their
hypothesis of what risk factors make outdoor play risky, this was cited in the abstract.
In contrast, for Ugur Baysal, Oz and Gokcay (2012) their research occurred after
looking at another source, World Health Report by UNICEF which said that more
than 2000 children get injured during outdoor risky play, hence Ugur Baysal, Oz and
Gokcay (2012) based their research on children hazard perception awareness and
injury prevention during outdoor play by children and expended this by getting
parents to do questionnaires on their safety concerns cited in the abstract, however
the type of questionnaire used was not specified which could undermine the
research to the reader, this could have been added.
In terms of evaluation for both pieces of research, both the work of Beate and
Sandseter (2009) and Ugur Baysal, Oz and Gokcay (2012) could hold significance
because they both make recommendations for practice although in contrasting
contexts, for Beate and Sandseter (2009) this was by discussing the significance of
adult supervision in outdoor risky play for children’s social development and Ugur
Baysal, Oz and Gokcay (2012) this was by talking about minimum supervision for
maximum social development. Also why the work of Beate and Sandseter and Ugur
Baysal, Oz and Gokcay (2012) is significant because to ensure validity and prevent
bias in their studies they reference the work of others, an example is how Ugur
Baysal, Oz and Gokcay (2012) cited a report by UNICEF as background on risky
play and injuries as evidence. Beate and Sandseter (2009) did this by citing a variety
of authors, but this could have improved by adding official sources such as
government reports of papers because readers may not know the background of
these authors and the credibility of their work, whereas a government paper made
this more current as some of the citations derive from authors show’s work ideas
from 1975 (Beate and Sandseter (2009).

Both the research by Beate and Sandseter (2009) to Ugur Baysal, Oz and Gokcay
(2012) is convincing because they provided other sources within their sources to
support and make this hypothesis valid, although Ugur Baysal, Oz and Gokcay
(2012) has more strength in this section because they used a questionnaire to get
parental perspectives into account although this was not specified in the paper in
regard to the type of questionnaire, the paper was good because it lets the reader
know that conclusion comes from sampling, whereas Beate and Sandseters (2009)
research can be deemed as less convincing because this is all academic and reads
like a literature review with not sufficient evidence to support hypothesis in terms of
sampling, which could lead reader to question its validity.
Promoting confidence:
According to Knight (2009) outdoor risky play is generally known to be thrilling and
exciting for children, this involves the risk of getting physically injured but it is more
about how the situation is dealt with and what a child will learn from this experience.
Appropriate outdoor risky play should not put a child off; in fact, it should motivate
the child to try again by trying to avoid the risk that may have caused them some sort
of harm the first time (Knight, 2009). In risky play, if there is too much focus on
children's safety, it can be problematic because it may prevent children from not
being able to explore and acquire an understanding of what risks are and to develop
physically and mentally (Knight, 2009). Knight (2009) also claims that if children are
not exposed to risks, they will not know what they are, if they inevitably face them,
they will not know how to react to them, through risky play in the outdoors, children
manage to gain real life skills that are transferable to dangerous situations.
In terms of outdoor risky play promoting social development in children, national
policy the Early Year’s Foundation Stage (EYFS), (DCSF, 2008) Section 1.18, says
that carers should provide well-planned activities based on children's outdoor play
preferences and habits which and that they should be able to recognise the different
types of play characteristics children exhibit in an outdoor and risk prone
environment and nurture this. Some children may play in a boisterous way around
risk and others may play quietly and are reflective as they play. If guardians of

children can identify the individual characteristics of play in a risky play outdoor
environment, they will be able to scaffold children and facilitate them in taking risks
at a pace that suits them and therefore this means that children will be intrinsically
motivated and will enjoy their play experience, similarly, Beate and Sandseter (2009)
claimed, adults should encourage risky play, but they should be aware of dangers
because they are the knowledgeable others. Furthermore, Tovey (2007) referred to
Stephon (2003) who claimed that risky play is what children refer to as 'scary' play,
they make the play more challenging and there are three ways in which they do this
and they are; attempting to do something that has never been done before, feeling
out of control and receiving the satisfaction of overcoming fear (Stephon, 2003 in
Tovey, 2007). Risky play is challenging play which makes a simple task more
exciting and daring (Tovey, 2007). Risky play is the kind of play where the outcome
and consequences are unknown, therefore, children become willing to find out the
unknown consequence and that is the excitement of the process (Tovey, 2007).
In terms of theoretical frameworks relating to children and outdoor risky play, there is
the Reggio Amelia approach which originates from Italy and it holds a powerful
image of children (Thornton and Bruton, 2007), every child is seen as strong and
competent, the child is listened to and their ideas are taken seriously (Thornton and
Bruton, 2007). The approach also looks at children's creativity and ways in which
they can be encouraged as it provides children with resources, space to explore
materials and freedom to solve problems both in a social and physical capacity. The
Reggio Curriculum is built up using children's questions about their environment and
their ideas which are used as a foundation to follow and build up on confidence and
well-being (Thornton and Bruton, 2007). The Reggio Emilia Approach also promotes
risk taking because the children are given the opportunity for trial and improvement;
they are encouraged to use materials alone without adult guidance (Rinaldi, 2005).
The Reggio Emilia acts as role model for the children and allow them to take control.

In contrast to Knight (2009), Strickland(1999) however says that even though
outdoor risky play may enrich a child’s confidence it can also demoralise them
because according to Strickland (1999),confidence grows from meeting with success
within tasks and with outdoor risky play children tentatively try things through
different stages by either observing others or endeavouring this themselves and this
comes in children moving through failures and mastering their play goals, if not
fully, then at a developmentally appropriate level and if goals are not met then
children may feel incapable. Strickland (1998) also opposes Knight (2009) by saying
that an adequate support system, such as parental and teacher’s assistant,
depending on the context plays a role in how risky play shapes the child’s
confidence, something that Knight (2009) does not discuss, by saying that if a child
fails to master a task through outdoor risky their confidence will degenerate and they
may become fearful, as children may not independently be able to become
motivated and argues that motivation in outdoor risky play should be nurtured into
the child through their support system, which consists of adults intervening
appropriately and urging the child to try their failed attempts anew, however
Strickland (1999), says that in the process of motivating children, adults should be
cautious in distinguishing between a risk and hazard, because a hazard is something
that doesn’t allow children to assess potential for injury however with a risk children
would be able to assess and determine what to do in that situation which could built
their confidence.
Critique:
In terms of what the papers are about, the work of Knight (2009) focusses on
outdoor learning in early years and takes into consideration the context of forest
school, although this dissertation does not include any aspect of forest school, the
source provided information specifically on the impact of outdoor risky play and the
impact of this on social development in segments without solely focussing on forest
school which prevented the source from being one sided in its research and detained
bias. The paper by Knight (2009) is also about transferable life skills and separates

the research from forest school by discussing how children taking risks can be used
in out of play contexts, however they did not have much justification for risk
management and had more of a focus on how forest school impacts cognitive
development which could have been used to enhance the dissertation literature
review. In terms of the research by Strickland (1999) theirs was based on how to
build confidence through outdoor play and the literature states that though outdoor
risky play may enrich a child’s confidence it can also demoralise them because
confidence grows from meeting with success within tasks and with outdoor risky play
children tentatively try things through different stages by either observing others or
endeavouring this and this happens in children moving through and failures and
mastering their play goals however failure may make them feel low. In comparison to
Knight (2009) Strickland pointed things out such as barriers but they suggested
areas it would have a good impact on as well such as discussing how children set
play goals, which is relevant for the dissertation.
The context in which the research pieces are based on are forest school for Knight
(2009) this could be seen as a strength for the paper because although this was
within a forest school framework intertwined with outdoor risky play and assurance
building, this gives the reader confidence to believe what the author is saying as the
context of forest school shapes the meaning of what Knight (2009) is communicating
and makes the papers convincing as forest school in relation to outdoor risky play in
consistent. This was generic for Strickland (1998) who did not specify in the research
the environment, however although the paper does have some strengths such as
sampling through an interview, to readers the paper discussing outdoor play and
children’s confidence without a context may make the research seem generalizable
and vague, additionally leaving readers susceptible to make assumptions about the
research background and the validity, which is a weakness to consider in Stricklands
paper.

Main topics to be explored are outdoor learning in early years within forest school for
Knight (2009) and for Strickland (1998) this had more focus on enhancing
confidence of children in the early years through outdoor play, by arguing both the
advantages and disadvantages of the relationship between outdoor risky play and
confidence which is the strength of the research in comparison to Knight (2009) who
did not consider advantages and disadvantages of their subject area.
The authors credibility, for both papers are a strength, an example of this is Sara
Knight (2009) who is cited in her book as an experienced early years educator and
senior lecturer in childhood studies at the Anglia Ruskin University and a trained
forest school practitioner. For Strickland (1998) this is good because in his paper he
is cited as PHD and outdoor play expert and a professor for Early Childhood
Education at the University of Texas in Arlington. From this it could be said that both
authors are experts in the field and have credibility for writing their research, this is
good for readers because it lets them know that the writers research has validity and
that the information comes from a trustworthy source.
How the research by both authors works in practice is demonstrated by Knight
(2009) because in the paper there is information letting readers know about how
children can get hurt during outdoor risky play, however it is explained in depth as to
why this is positive and how they can benefit from this followed by what parents and
carers can do in terms of adequate supervision and how to motivate their children in
a safe way to engage in risky play situations, this is a strength in the paper because
readers can learn from reading the work of Knight (2009) how to apply the authors
hypothesis into practice. In terms of the work of Strickland (1998), demonstrates this
by giving advice in their research by saying that ‘in the process of motivating
children, adults should be cautious in distinguishing between a risk and hazard,
because a hazard is something that doesn’t allow children to assess potential for
injury however with a risk child would be able to assess and determine what to do in
that situation which could built their confidence’, this could potentially be something
that readers of the research may take into consideration and apply to practice.

The way in which the research was conducted was demonstrated by Strickland
(1998) although this could be perceived as a weakness, because although the paper
was written as an interview conducted by Early Childhood Today and Strickland
(1998) gives answers based on their experience, for readers this may lead them to
question the validity of the research because the interview was based on Strickland
(1998) although credible in their field, the idea that the research derived from his
experience may be of value to readers and could have been improved by observing
or interviewing children and or their parents on their perspective on risk or this could
have been added in addition to Stricklands interview, because the way in which the
research was conducted could open the possibility of bias from readers and
sampling a wider demographic would have made the paper better by providing
diversity. The way in which the research was conducted by Knight (2009) was a
strength because although not used within the dissertation, Knight used sampling in
her work by presenting interviews and observations in form of case studies to
support her hypothesis, from 2007 one of which was within a nursery practitioner
working with children between the ages 10 months to 6 years to ask about and
support the hypothesis of the claim that if children are not exposed to risks, they will
not know what they are, if they inevitably face them, they will not know how to react
to them, through risky play in the outdoors, children manage to gain real life skills
that are transferable to dangerous situations. This would lead to believe the research
to believe in the research as they would see that the sampling as evidence to
support claims made within the research rather than relying on experience, like
Strickland (1998) did which could be seen as unreliable.
In terms of significance that both research papers can offer, it could be said that both
do because of factors such as author credibility, Strickland (1998) as PHD and
outdoor play expert and a professor for Early Childhood Education at the University
of Texas in Arlington and Knight (2009) an experienced early years educator and
senior lecturer in childhood studies at the Anglia Ruskin University and a trained
forest school practitioner as their work is valid due to their background and
experiences, furthermore both papers could hold significance over what their

research indoctrinates, with Knight (2009) saying inn risky play, if there is too much
focus on children's safety, it can be problematic because it may prevent children from
not being able to explore and acquire an understanding of what risks are and to
develop physically and mentally (Knight, 2009) and Strickland (1998) opposing this
by saying that an adequate support system, such as parental and teacher’s
assistant, depending on the context plays a role in how risky play shapes the child’s
confidence stating that if a child fails to master a task through outdoor risky their
confidence they may become fearful, as children may not be able to become
motivated and that motivation in outdoor risky play should be nurtured through
adults. Also the papers can be seen as significant because they enable reader to
apply to practice skills such as hazard awareness and the right time for intervention,
something that readers may find resourceful and convincing.
Parental attitudes as a barrier to children accessing outdoor play
Smith (1998) suggests that there is a common assumption that risk factors in play is
a negative concept and must be avoided. According to Little, Wyver and Gibson
(2011) a major barrier to having the opportunities for engaging in risky play are
parent's perceptions and their disagreements of allowing their children to engage.
Parents are usually in the misconception that risky play is bad for children, this is a
conception that is constructed by society when in reality, one of the factors of risky
play is that the only way that children will be safe is if they are exposed to taking
some risks and learn how to manage them, parental disapproval of risky play is
suggested to be negative to children’s physical and social capacity (Little, Wyver and
Gibson, 2011). Furthermore, Little, Wyver and Gibson (2011) conducted research
which states that parents attitude plays a vital role in their children’s engagement of
physical activities, especially concern for the childs safety which may determine
individual choice to participate (Boufous, Finch & Bauman 2004 in Little, Wyver and
Gibson 2011), as part of this, Kelley, Hood and Mayall (1998) in Little, Wyver and
Gibson (2011) said that the reason parents may prevent the physical and social
development of their child through outdoor risky play is because they may feel

obligated to protect their child from risk on one hand, however it is argued by Little,
Wyver and Gibson (2011) that simultaneously they may feel obliged to encourage
their children’s experience of appropriate risk taking in order to gain social and
physical competence but concern for safety can become a barrier. This is
contradicted by Brussoni et al (2012) who suggests that good practice and parental
hazard perception ensures that safety measures are in place to avoid apprehension
of a child’s ability to engage in outdoor risky play for parents however to be cautious
as to not impose too many restrictions in the process as this may hinder their health
& well-being under article 31 of the United Nations Convention on the rights of the
child. Some of the suggestions to alleviate parental concern over outdoor risky play
safety by Brussoni et al (2012) were made after finding, a U.K. study of 1,011
parents, 43% saying that children under the age of 14 years should not be allowed
outside unsupervised, the suggestions to mitigate risks were, supervision to a
minimum and encouraging children to pursue their interests freely whilst making
them aware of hazards allowing them to make decisions, scaffolding is also
suggested, where risk factors are removed such as covering sharp edges, and raw
materials.
Critique:
In terms of what the papers are about Little, Wyver and Gibson (2011) centre their
work on The Influence of Play Context and Adult Attitudes on Young Children's Physical
Risk-Taking during Outdoor Play by discussing that a barrier to children accessing
outdoor risky play is parental perceptions and their concern of safety and how
society has shaped this impression into parents and also the authors research focus
shifts because Little, Wyver and Gibson (2011) contradict their own work by
considering what would happen if parents were to be less cautious and let children
take appropriate risk in the outdoor to help with development and well-being, this
could be seen as a strength for the research because it means that the research

does not seem one sided or bias by only focussing on how parental perception can
prevent children’s outdoor experience and balancing this with the opposite argument
of how a positive mind-set may reflect on the children’s development, on the other
hand the work of Brussoni et al (2012) focusses on risky play and children’s safety
taking into account what is best for their development by directing the work on safety
by contradicting Little, Wyver and Gibson (2011) suggesting that good practice and
parental hazard perception ensures that safety measures are in place to avoid
apprehension of a child’s ability to engage in outdoor risky play for parents however
to be cautious as to not impose too many restrictions in the process as this may
hinder their health & well-being, this could be seen as a strength for the research
because it is specific on safety and takes into consideration the perception of parents
within one publication which is more accessible to readers, furthermore this research
has its strength because as well as talking about parental perceptions of outdoor
risky play, some of the literature can be used in practice by readers, as reflected in
the following extract: ‘parental hazard perception ensures that safety measures are
in place to avoid apprehension of a child’s ability to engage in outdoor risky play for
parents however to be cautious as to not impose too many restrictions in the process
as this may hinder their health & well-being’.
The context in which the research pieces are based on are varied in both papers, for
Little, Wyver & Gibson (2011) this was demonstrated because within the paper, the
focus is on outdoor risky play from 2 separate contexts, refined and discussed
separately which are within an early years setting and within a neighbourhood
playground context, this is good because although 2 settings for the research may
lead readers to question why a singular environment was not sufficient, it gives the
research validity, because if the work of Little, Wyver & Gibson (2011) did not have a
background, this would have contradicted the title of the publication ‘The Influence of
Play Context and Adult Attitudes on Young Children's Physical Risk-Taking during Outdoor
Play’ and may have led to questions of the research rationality however in relation to
Brussoni et al (2012) establishing a context was a weakness, even though the
research was consistent with the theme of outdoor risky play and impact of social

development, it could be said that due to this, readers may perceive the research to
be generalizable and less believable as Brussoni et al (2012) giving their work
context could have added value in terms of supporting their hypothesis.
Main topics to be explored within both papers are clearly addressed, although they
contrast each other and is evident because within the abstract by Brussoni et al
(2012) it is stated that the research will focus on relationship between child
development, play, and conceptions of risk taking with the aim of informing child
injury prevention and outlining the importance of play as a necessary ingredient for
healthy child development and review the evidence for arguments supporting the
need for outdoor risky play, including parental involvement (Brussoni et al 2012). For
Little, Wyver and Gibson (2011) the main topics as cited in the abstract are that the
study aims to look at characteristics of outdoor risky play but also look at the factors
that may affect this and the aftermath, this is a strength because it enables the
reader to know what the study will specifically look at.
The author credibility varies, for Little, Wyver and Gibson (2011) this could be seen
as a weakness because within the study it is cited that the research was done at
Institute of Early Childhood, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia, however
because no acknowledgement of the authors backgrounds Helen Little, Shirley
Wyver & Frances Gibson is given, readers may question the validity of the
hypothesis of the paper, because all authors have contributed and without credit of
the authors the content may seem as an untrustworthy source. For Brussoni et al
(2012) this could also be seen as weakness because the authors names, similar to
Little, Wyver and Gibson (2011), however no background is provided, which may
raise the same issue as those for whom may read the work of Little, Wyver and
Gibson (2011).

In terms of how the research works in practice is an advantage for Brussoni et al
(2012) because they make suggestions, that good practice and parental hazard
perception ensures that safety measures are in place to avoid apprehension of a
child’s ability to engage in outdoor risky play for parents however to be cautious as to
not impose too many restrictions in the process as this may hinder their health and
well-being, for Little, Wyver and Gibson (2011) this was a disadvantage because in
that study the authors discuss parental perceptions and why they exist, however the
study may fail to establish application of its work in practice because it does not give
recommendations, unlike Brussoni et al (2012) on how to overcome fear of children
getting hurt, which could have been added to make the literature better.
How the research occurred was for Brussoni et al (2012), was done by referring to a
study of Australian children ages 48 to 64 months that collected observational and
interview data on 38 children indicated that when provided with a choice 74% of
participants preferred to play on the more challenging playground equipment.
Furthermore, while only 21% to 34% of children had experience using the higher risk
equipment (Brussoni et al, 2012). This is an advantage for the study as it shows that
they got a wide range of perspectives through evidence and methods which shows
that the readers hypothesis is evidence based and reliable. On the other hand, for
Little, Wyver and Gibson (2011), this was also an advantage for the study because it
consists of a methods section supporting its hypothesis saying that ‘The research
was conducted in five Early Childhood centres located in different regions of Sydney.
Centres were preschools and long day-care services managed by a large not-for-
profit organisation. Families recruited were mainly from AngloAustralian
backgrounds (78%) and with mothers having educational levels as follows: university
degree (59%); other post-secondary qualification (19%); secondary school (22%)’,
furthermore the study stated about participants in a truthful way which made the
literature convincing, saying that ‘Of the mothers who consented for their children to
participate, 24 agreed to be interviewed and 12 of these agreed to accompany their
child to a local park. Efforts were made to include fathers in the study however only
one father completed the questionnaire measure and another father accompanied

his child to the park for the playground observations’ (Little, Wyver and Gibson,
2011).
In terms of significance, both research papers differentiate. For Little Wyver and
Gibson (2011), their research can be perceived as insignificant because of factors
such as the lack of recommendation within the study on how parents can overcome
their fear of letting children develop through outdoor risky play, as the research
unlike Brussoni et al (2012) is solely a literature review without practical guidance,
and lack of credibility of its authors backgrounds, raising questions on validity and
relevance and make it less convincing. It could be said that the research of Brussoni
et al (2012) also holds significance in the field of outdoor risky play and social
development because the its recommendations for practice, warning readers to be
aware and apply this to practice, an example of this is from the extract ‘good
practice and parental hazard perception ensures that safety measures are in place to
avoid apprehension of a child’s ability to engage in outdoor risky play for parents
however to be cautious as to not impose too many restrictions in the process’.
Outdoor risky play and positive impact on academic achievement
Constable and Green (2012) claimed that when children take risks in the outdoors
interacting with nature, it has been found that they improve in social skills and
concentrate more on their academic pursuits, they also learn how to manage their
behaviour and work better in group activities socially as through play they have the
opportunity to ventilate negative energies. In comparison Wirth and Rosenow (2012),
they suggested that children's early experiences of the outdoors provide them with a
strong foundation of physical agility by facing danger factors and social development
by developing verbal and nonverbal communication skills through peer interaction.
Outdoor learning supports children's natural curiosities and builds up their genuine
interest in learning, as children need challenges and a varied stimulation in order to
develop normally, physically and mentally (Beate and Sandseter, 2011).

When children are involved in risky play, they rehearse the handling of real life risky
situations and this is rich for their futures. When they are in an actual risky situation
and learn how to manage them, the impact that this has on children is important for
their development in the sense that it they gain confidence and it gets them ready for
later in life (Constable & Green, 2012).
When they actually face a risky situation, they will not be as hesitant because of the
experience of play and involvement they had in risky activities and opportunities that
were available to them in their early years (Beate and Sandseter, 2011), this is
similar to what Knight (2009) also claimed about children being exposed to some
risks being good for a healthy development and practice for real life situations. Risk
taking in an outdoor environment for children is seen more as pushing the
boundaries of learning and trying something new by moving out of their comfort
zone, it is an environment that encourages children's confidence to make mistakes
and then to acknowledge that they have time to reflect and improve. This again is
similar to the Reggio Emelia approach where adults must concentrate on giving
children time and space to learn so that they do not feel pressurised which is
different to a mainstream educational environment such as a typical classroom
where children are surrounded by guides by which they must work towards and aims
they must reach (Siegfredsen, 2012), this supports what Little, Wyver and Gibson
(2011) claimed about societal conceptions coming in the way of children being
involved in taking risks and being over protective and undermining children’s ability.
In contrast to Constable and Green (2012), Sandseter, Little and Wyver (2012) says
that outdoor risky play can also disadvantage young people because it can become
a distraction because children may become enthralled with physical risks within their
learning environment whether this is in a mainstream classroom or outdoor, and that
their curiosity for exploring risky territories may lead them to become astray from
their academic pursuits, something that Constable and Green (2012) do not mention
in their research, also Sandseter, Little and Wyver (2012) also say that once young
children become acquainted with outdoor and risks, they favour the excitement and
thrill of this over academia.

Critique:
In terms of what the papers are about, the work of Constable and Green (2012)
focuses on ‘The outdoor classroom ages 3-7: Using ideas from Forest School to
enrich learning’ and discusses outdoor risky play and the effect on social
development by and explains the learning potential of the outdoor environment and
practically explains how an outdoor classroom and risky environment can be
developed and beneficial to the early years (Constable and Green, 2012), as part of
this, Constable and Green (2012) say that when children take risks in the outdoors,
they improve in social skills and concentrate more on their academic pursuits, they
also learn how to manage their behaviour and work better socially as through
outdoor risky play they have the opportunity to ventilate negative energies.
The research by Sandseter, Little and Wyver (2012) is an investigation based
research which poses the question of if theory and education has an impact on
provisions for outdoor learning, the research proposes that outdoor risky play
disadvantages young people because it can become a distraction because children
may become enthralled with physical risks within their learning environment and that
their curiosity for exploring risky territories may lead them to become astray from
their academic pursuits (Sandseter, Little and Wyver, 2012). For both researches this
is a strength based because this is addressed in the citation which will enable
readers to understand the overview and main points covered by the authors,
providing clarity.
The context in which the research for Constable and Green (2012) was written is a
strength for the research to some extent, as this is within a forest school
environment, however this could have been improved by explaining what forest
school is and how this distinguishes in comparison to other mainstream educational
settings, which the authors did not do, furthermore the research could have been
modified by being specific in terms of the age group of the children within the forest
school, partaking risky play, however this was vague throughout the study which

could lead readers to question the validity of the study. In terms of context for
Sandseter, Little and Wyver (2012) this was a strength because it was done within
an early years setting, although this is not directly addressed throughout the
research alternatively the use of words like early childhood education, preschool and
kindergarten, although this was good this could have been better for readers by
using a singular specific term such as preschool throughout the research rather than
using a variation to avoid confusion to readers as some may not be able to
differentiate the difference.
Main topics to be explored are a strength for Constable and Green (2012) and
Sandseter, Little and Wyver (2012), both authors demonstrated this by citing this in
their abstracts. Constable and Green (2012) demonstrate this by dedicating sections
to themes like social skills, academic pursuits to behaviour management and cite in
their introduction their main points will be of how it ‘Examines some of the historical
perspectives on learning outdoor and look at how those ideas form the basis of the
experiences offered to children in Nurseries in the 21st
century’ (Constable and
Green 2012). For Sandseter, Little and Wyver (2012) this was demonstrated by
saying in the abstract that ‘In this paper, we contrast the early childhood education
and care aims and curriculum in Norway and Australia and the theoretical
underpinnings of Norwegian and Australian pedagogy in an attempt to partially
explain the different approaches to (risky) outdoor play in these two countries’
Sandseter, Little and Wyver (2012) and similar to Constable and Green (2012) the
papers explores main topic such as exploring risky territories to impact of outdoor
risky play and academia in paragraphs, this makes the research accessible for
readers.
The author credibility for Sandseter, Little and Wyver (2012), is a weakness because
in the paper it is cited that the research was conducted at Queen Maud University
College of Early Childhood Education, Norway; Macquarie University, Australia, this
may be sufficient for some readers however to some readers this may be inadequate
and make the reader question the authenticity of the research, having
acknowledgement of authors background could have made this more convincing.

For Constable and Green (2012) this was a strength as the reader’s backgrounds
were acknowledged, which could give the readers faith in the research as the paper
cites that ‘Karen Constable is a reception teacher at Mark First School, UK’ and
‘Sandy Green worked within the early year’s sector for over 35 years initially as a
Nursery nurse in both education and social services settings and later as a lecturer
in further education’ (Constable and Green, 2012).
In terms of how the research papers work in practice varies, for Constable and
Green (2012) this is a strength because not only does the literature inform readers
about the benefits of outdoor risky play for young children’s academic pursuits with
points such as ‘ventilating negative energy’ but illustrates how this has worked in real
life situations by presenting case studies within the investigation of how this has
helped young people before and also the study features a chapter on how parents
can get involved with outdoor risky play with children, which can help readers to
implement outdoor risky play into practice, however this could have been improved
with a summary of the key points from the case study in order to be accessible to
some readers who may not understand the case studies. For Sandseter, Little and
Wyver (2012) this was also a weakness because the authors refer to and cite the
work of others and discuss this in depth by giving advice on how to apply the theory
into practice however to readers this may become a barrier as they may not
understand the theories and language used within the study, therefore what would
have made this stronger could have been similar to what Constable and Green
(2012) by including case studies illustrating how the theories work in practice.
How the research occurred for Constable and Green (2012) was by conducting a
narrative observation on children within an outdoor risky play context and presenting
their findings within their hypothesis in the format of case studies, this was a strength
for the research because it gives readers evidence to acknowledge that the
hypothesis proposed by the authors is evidence based and free of bias, however this
could have been strengthened further by including interviewing teachers from the
early years within the forest school context, to let readers know the opinion of
experts and their recommendations of outdoor risky play because they have a direct

relationship with the children whom Constable & Green (2012) observed. For
Sandseter, Little and Wyver (2012) the way the research occurred was supported by
interviewing early childhood teachers regarding their approaches to planning for
outdoor risky play, beliefs about risk taking and safety, and featuring their views
about regulatory environment and implications of their methods (Constable & Green
2012). This is a strength because it demonstrates to readers that the research is not
one sided or bias by featuring the opinions of experts in the field aside the authors
contributions, giving it more validity.
In terms of the significance both the research papers offer this is varied, for
Constable and Green (2012) the significance of their research lies in terms of how
their research works in practice by using case studies to show how outdoor risky
play has helped with young children social development and making
recommendation for parents as to how to integrate and encourage risky play in their
children which readers can find useful and also author credibility giving the research
meaning by outlining the authors backgrounds which links to children’s early
childhood development convincing the reader to have faith in the literature and refer
back to this if needed. For Sandseter, Liitle and Wyver (2012) their research holds
significance in terms of how the research occurred, by conducting interviews with
experts in the early years who gave their views on outdoor risky play and how their
teacher teaching methods facilitates or disables this, which could be important to
some readers, especially if the reader is a teacher and wants to find out about
outdoor risky play and teaching environment which makes this convincing.

Risky play and exercising danger:
According to Slade, Lowery and Bland (2013) outdoor risky play is best for children
as they are given the liberty of exploring the outdoors and doing practical activities
that they may not do in their everyday lives, they learn where materials they use
come from, what nature is and its benefits and it is important to educate children
about their input on the environment. Slade, Lowery and Bland (2013) suggest from
their research, for some children being in the outdoors allows them to move away
from the conventional play types such as solitary or parallel play by getting them to
associate with nature and handling risks through experiencing them by physically
engaging and mentally by assessing dangers which is said to be positive on their
social development and cognitive development.
In comparison to Lowery and Bland (2013) it is suggested that Risky Play is highly
beneficial for children’s social and physical development, as Beate and Sandseter
(2009) claimed, when children are exercising risky play situations, they are often
rehearsing for real life situations, this shows the significance of risky play as it is a
foundation for the future. Risky play allows children to overcome fears and this is
also a rich attainment for children because it allows them to feel good about
themselves, overcoming fears are also a foundation for their futures because it will
allow them to strive for unsure situations in life, when children take risks, they are
more likely to effectively manage them after making mistakes and learning from them
as well as the physical elements by attaining exercise and using equipment (Beate
and Sandseter, 2009).

Critique:
In terms of what the papers are about for Slade and Lowery (2013) this was outlined
in the title ‘Evaluating the Impact of Forest Schools: A Collaboration between a
University and a Primary School’, which consist of hypothesis suggesting that for
children being in the outdoors allows them to move away from the conventional play
types such as solitary or parallel play by getting them to associate with nature and
handling risks through experiencing them by physically engaging and mentally by
assessing dangers within the context of forest school. For Beate and Sandseter
(2009) their research was similar to Slade and Lowery and Bland (2013) as their
study was based on ‘Characteristics of Risky Play ‘and the supporting literature was based
on how outdoor risky play allows children to overcome fears and this is also a rich
attainment because it allows them to feel good about themselves, saying that
overcoming fears are also a foundation for their futures because it will allow them to
strive for unsure situations in life.
The context in which the research pieces are based on vary, for Beate and
Sandseter (2009) this was done within a Norwegian preschool through doing
observations and videotaping characteristics of outdoor risky play in children
throughout the course of 5 months with assistance from early years’ teachers, this
was a strength for the paper because it lets readers know that this is raw data
derived from a real life situation done over a course of time giving the research more
value. In terms of context for Slade and Lowery (2013) this was in a forest school
located in Scandinavia and investigated in the University of Northampton, by
interviewing pupils and their parents and semi structured interviews with teachers,
what made this better for Slade and Lowery (2013) was by dedicating a section to
the context by giving readers background information on participants and forest
school.

Main topics to be explored within both papers were of similar nature, which consisted
of positive impact on social and cognitive development, assessing danger,
confidence building and rehearsing real life situations which were cited in the
abstracts and addressed in chapters in depth, which could be seen as a strength for
both papers because this is accessible to readers. Furthermore, the main points
leading up to the hypothesis were made better by citing other authors and theorists
as evidence to support their claims, which imply that the main topics in the research
have no bias.
The author credibility for Slade and Lowery (2013) was a weakness for the study
because no acknowledgement of the authors backgrounds was provided, which
could lead readers to question the validity of the research and the hypothesis, this
could have been made better by acknowledging the authors background and
relationship to the topic. For Beate and Sandseter (2009) this was a strength
because in the paper it is mentioned that the authors are from Queen Maud
University College of Early Childhood Education (DMMH), Trondheim, Norway,
however to make this better their roles could have been discussed and the relevance
of their relationship with the topic rather than citing their education as for some
readers this may be insufficient.
In terms of how the research works in practice, both Beate and Sandseter (2009)
and Lowery and Bland (2013) varies, Beate and Sandseter (2009) show their
research may not work in practice by discussing the characteristics and benefits of
outdoor risky, however this could have been applicable to practice case studies
would have strengthened the research, by showing how characteristics of risky play
are a benefit by using their observations on an individual to conduct a case study
and track progress, so that reader may recognize how effective this is. Lowery and
Bland (2013) demonstrate their research works in practice because interviews with
early years’ teachers and parents, who gave their opinions of outdoor risky play and
offered suggestions on how to make this better within a learning environment, this
was a strength because readers the opportunity to apply the suggestions to real life
situations, this could be helpful to both target audiences of parents and teachers.

In terms of how the research occurred for Beate and Sandseter (2009) this was a
strength that demonstrated by showing that the research was done within a
Norwegian preschool through doing observations and videotaping characteristics of
outdoor risky play in children throughout the course of 5 months with assistance from
early years’ teachers and findings were presented in a separate paragraph. For
Lowery and Bland (2013) this was in a forest school located in Scandinavia and
investigated in the University of Northampton, by interviewing pupils and their
parents and semi structured interviews with teachers and dedicated a section to the
background information on participants.
In terms of the significance that the studies have, it could be said that both papers
are significant because they both support the theme of risky play and exercising
danger by focussing on the benefits of outdoor risky play, furthermore they could be
seen as significant because of the sampling methods and contexts they were done
in, which includes interviews, observations to recommendation from early years’
educators and parents from a forest school setting to a Norwegian preschool, which
makes the research papers convincing and useful for readers.

Methodology
This section will be discussing how each research featured in the literature review
were selected through systematic research (See appendix 1). Also in this section the
research will be discussed in regards to what type this is, theory supporting this and
why this was relevant to the work and dissertation subject.
In order to find the best available evidence a number of relevant databases were
used. These included Pyschinfo, Scopus, ProQUEST education journals, Library
Gateway, British Education Index, Education Abstracts (EBSCO Host), and Google
Scholar (see appendix 1) all of which are qualitative data, which Morris (2014)
defines as a multi-dimensional field and strategy forbidding any easy definition and
goes into depth in regards to definition and justification behind research excluding
the use of numbers or keeping this to a minimum.
The search terms used within the data base were Outdoor/risky/play,
forest/school/education, reggio/Emilia/early/years,
characteristics*of*risky*play, risky play, enriching/learning/outdoor,
outdoor/learning/early/years, children’s/risk/taking/behaviour,
Reggio/Emilia/learning, risk*on*the*playground, Statutory framework for the
early year’s foundation stage, early years education in practice,
playing*outdoor, nature filled classroom, Building confidence through outdoor
play, Provision for outdoor learning, (See appendix 1).
For the search strategy, resources were refined to the English language within the
United Kingdom, and 6 of the evidence sources were refined to Books/E-Books,
there were Thornton & Brutton (2007), Constable & Green (2012), Knight (2009),
Rinaldi (2005), Smith (1998), Siegfredson (2012), and Tovey (2007), (See
appendix 1). The reason why books were chosen for evidence is because it was
more focussed on the subject area whereas the other sources were more broad and
covered things such as policies using technical language, the other resources did not

focus on keywords and were broad by not focussing on outdoor risky play per se.
This type of research also is classed as longitudinal research because the books
were written over the duration of a few years, accumulating the work and
contributions of other credible authors which is also why the books were used for the
literature review, in order to amass information from across all years (See
appendices, literature review reading list).
According to Northway (2003) Longitudinal data and research is good for 2 reasons,
one to describe patterns of change, which each book did by looking at historical
backgrounds of outdoor risky play and two, to analyse relationships, in this case the
books looked at the relationship by looking at childrens social development from a
wider perspective by contributing factors like verbal, non-verbal communication and
physical well-being under the category of social, then analysing this against the
children and their parents (Northway, 2003). Also Northway (2003) says that
Longitudinal study makes good use of examples to illustrate points and makes
reference to a wide range of literature.
The databases used to find the Books/E-Books varied in order to find the best
sources to support the literature review themes, using British Education Index, and
Sheffield Hallam University Library catalogue (See appendix 1). British education
index enabled me to access the best resources in terms of qualitative data because
it gathers information on research, policy and practice and training specifically within
the United Kingdom, furthermore this database was accessed because the books
within this had its strengths due to focus on educational policy, evaluation and
educational needs, which is what outdoor play is characterised under. The other
database used to get access the books used for research included Sheffield Hallam
university Library catalogue using key search terms (See appendix 1), then the
search criteria was further refined to Books/E-Books, otherwise the database offered
all search criteria’s which included dissertations, conference proceedings, thesis and
newspaper articles (See appendix 1). Sheffield Hallam University Library Catalogue
was good because due to its big faculty for education they had many top authors and

resources available and allowed for research to be refined in terms of the year of
publication
One source was derived from the database Google scholar, which was by typing in
the search term Statutory framework for the early year’s foundation stage (See
appendix 1), which was a policy based research, according to Van (2010) Google
scholar as a database is effective for offering simple search tips and search terms
can be used using quotations and advanced search can help to Combine search
terms, sort your search by date, refine this by country, limit your search to a single
domain, bind the number of results to search for a specific research type, some of
which was applied after entering key words (See appendix 1). Integrating the
research from Statutory framework for the early year’s foundation stage (See
appendix 1), evidence and policy based practice was found, using evidence and
policy based research allows there to be no bias because hypothesis is derived from
proof based data which cannot be fabricated, furthermore evidence and policy based
research enabled for the literature review to contain government and national
perspective in regards to the dissertation subject, rather than refining this to solely
academic and theoretical concepts (Refer to literature review, theme 2, Promoting
confidence).
Using Google scholar database, grey literature was accessed. Haddaway et al
(2015) says that Google scholar database is a commonly used web-based academic
search engine, catalogues between 2 and 100 million records of both academic and
grey literature (articles not formally published by commercial academic publishers)
and also concludes that conclude that whilst Google Scholar can find much grey
literature and specific, known studies, it should not be used alone for systematic
review searches (Haddaway et al, 2015). In terms of grey literature and the
database, Haddaway et al (2015) states that Grey literature is research documents
such as non-academic sources, derived from policies and government rulings and
that approximately 39% of full text results from Google scholar are classed as grey

literature. The source Statutory framework for the early year’s foundation stage (See
appendix 1) came under this as it classed as a policy/government ruling.
The other research papers used within the literature review were peer reviewed
journals, these were Brussoni et al (2012, Slade, Lowery & Bland (2013), Beaye and
Sandseter (2009), Sandseter & Kannair (2011), Little (2006), Wirth & Rosenow
(2012), Strickland (1999), Ugur Baysal, Oz & Gokcay, (2012) and Sandseter, Little
& Wyver (2012) (See appendix 1 for search terms). The peer reviewed journals were
not refined on their databases in terms of publication years, as it was imperative to
get access to research from all years to support literature review and get varied
perspectives on the concept of outdoor risky play, furthermore the journals were
refined from media based research such as magazines and newspapers in order to
avoid potential bias, also research on outdoor risky play and social development in
media type format would have been limited or non-existent, hence peer reviewed
journals were more accessible and convenient to search and select, the journals
could be classified as longitudinal study because the research was written over the
duration of a few years, accumulating the work and contributions of other credible
authors (Northway, 2003), Northway (2003) also says that Longitudinal study makes
good use of examples to illustrate points and makes reference to a wide range of
literature, which the peer reviewed journals provided. For the above search terms,
the following databases were accessed:
-Pyschinfo,
-Scopus,
-ProQUEST education journals,
- Library Gateway,
-British Education Index,
-Education Abstracts (EBSCO Host),

Using peers reviewed journals for research enables source of information from
various credible authors without the reader having to look for them individually and
furthermore they can direct you to the work of other authors through citations and
references and peer reviewed journals can evaluate the quality of others work within
their research to determine their accuracy (Björk, Bo-Christer, & Solomon, David,
2013).
In terms of categories under research type, this would come under longitudinal data
because the journals were written and compiled over the duration of years, by
studying the work of other credible authors and citing them within the journals and
Northway (2003) supports this by saying that longitudinal data and research is good
for 2 reasons, one to describe patterns of change, which each journal did by looking
at previous backgrounds of outdoor risky play and two, to analyse relationships
which was provided by comparing and contrasting existing literature to determine a
good evaluation.
Journal articles used in the literature review and search strategy would also be
classed as secondary research, because they collate existing research and review
these, according to Davis‐Kean, Jager & Maslowsky, (2015) secondary data
analysis of large longitudinal and national data sets is a standard method used in
many social sciences to answer complex questions regarding behaviour.
Furthermore I used peer reviewed journals, classed under secondary research
because they compared, contrasted and challenged what existing research and
theorists says on outdoor risky play within the papers (Refer to literature review)
furthermore secondary sources of data are equipped to test some of the key theories
and models of social science, and expanding within developmental parameters and
offering conclusions after evaluation (Davis‐Kean, Jager & Maslowsky, 2015).

The search exclusion criteria for the journals included, conference proceedings,
newspaper and magazine articles, trade journals exam papers, reviews and
dissertations in order to get a range of academic perspectives from credible authors,
whereas using those used in the exclusion would have led to inaccurate data,
propaganda and bias which peer reviewed journals did not comprise of.
Boolean operator was applied for some of the search terms (Full search strategy:
See appendix 1), briefly these included Beate and Sandseter (2009), Smith (1998),
Tovey (2007) using the search terms characteristics*of*risky*play,
risk*on*the*playground and playing*outdoor. Boolean operator was applied in
order for the search strategy to be effective and precise, without using the term
‘AND’ for the database and without needing to type the search terms into separate
boxes.
According to Betty, Oldroyd, and Schroder (1982), Boolean operator, also known as
postial logic has made a different kind of strategy available to the searcher of online
systems and makes it possible to specify on databases the ‘adjacency of terms’ in
various combinations within 1 search statement, furthermore Betty, Oldroyd and
Schroder (1982) what is good about Boolean operator for search strategies is that
even if a direct source is not acquired from the search terms, these can appear as
citations in other sources, providing the searcher with alternatives.
To conclude in this section has discussed how each research featured in the
literature review was selected through systematic research (See appendix 1). Also in
this section the research has discussed in regards to what type this is, theory
supporting this and why this was relevant to the work and dissertation subject.

Analysis
This section of the dissertation will be analysing the major themes that occurred from
the findings. This section will also compare the links between the themes and will
relate them to theory and literature to confirm whether or not they are strong or weak
themes in terms of how they are backed up with literature and what some key
theorists have to contribute towards this.
Themes overview:
In terms of physical developmental outcomes in outdoor risky play, the risk' in
children's play is primarily focused on the physical features of play such as unstable
surfaces, sharp edges and the maximum fall heights (Little, 2006). Research by
Beate and Sandsetter (2009) shows that a lack of supervision is one of the causes of
children facing risks and injuries. Beate and Sandseter (2009) also discuss that
educating children about how to be aware of risks, how to manage them and the
consequences of knowingly getting themselves into harmful behaviour giving them
the freedom to explore their environment and physical capacity (Beate and
Sandseter, 2009).
According to Knight (2009) outdoor risky play is generally known to be thrilling and
exciting for children, this involves the risk of getting physically injured but it is more
about how the situation is dealt with and what a child will learn from this experience.
Appropriate outdoor risky play should not put a child off; in fact, it should motivate
the child to try again by trying to avoid the risk that may have caused them some sort

of harm the first time (Knight, 2009). In risky play, if there is too much focus on
children's safety, it can be problematic because it may prevent children from not
being able to explore and acquire an understanding of what risks are and to develop
physically and mentally (Knight, 2009). Knight (2009) also claims that if children are
not exposed to risks, they will not know what they are, if they inevitably face them,
they will not know how to react to them, through risky play in the outdoors, children
manage to gain real life skills that are transferable to dangerous situations.
According to Little, Wyver and Gibson (2011) a major barrier to having the
opportunities for engaging in risky play are parent's perceptions and their
disagreements of allowing their children to engage. Parents are usually in the
misconception that risky play is bad for children, this is a conception that is
constructed by society when in reality, one of the factors of risky play is that the only
way that children will be safe is if they are exposed to taking some risks and learn
how to manage them, parental disapproval of risky play is suggested to be negative
to children’s physical and social capacity (Little, Wyver and Gibson, 2011).
Constable and Green (2012) claimed that when children take risks in the outdoors
interacting with nature, it has been found that they improve in social skills and
concentrate more on their academic pursuits, they also learn how to manage their
behaviour and work better in group activities socially as through play they have the
opportunity to ventilate negative energies.
Slade, Lowery and Bland (2013) suggest from their research, for some children
being in the outdoors allows them to move away from the conventional play types
such as solitary or parallel play by getting them to associate with nature and handling
risks through experiencing them by physically engaging and mentally by assessing
dangers which is said to be positive on their social development and cognitive
development.

Analysing themes:
Theme 1: Physical features- This theme has a direct link with theme 3 which is
‘parental attitudes as a barrier to children accessing outdoor play’. This is because,
both themes address the barriers and what constitutes risk. At the same time, both
themes convey ways of overcoming the barriers. Jambor and Palmer (1991) claim
that adults become the play facilitators by providing children with rich play
environments. Safety is the primary concern and therefore, regular checks are
needed. When children are given these opportunities and the risks are addressed to
them, they soon become able to follow thematic instructions and therefore begin to
regulate the risks by themselves. Both the themes address issues areas that may be
of concern, however, there is literature that supports how the issues are addressed
and therefore, they do not actually become a barrier for risky play in the outdoors.
Theme 3 confirms what Nigun and Asiye (2015) claim about how decreasing play
settings may somewhat be damaging for children as it limits their experiences. Some
of the main concerns are things such as stranger-dangers, getting lost and accidents
and injuries. However, both them themes have addressed how children learn how to
address dangers by being exposed to small dangers. Although parental attitudes
was a major theme, research shows that the outdoors is proven to be one of the
areas where adults are more likely to interact with children through child-initiated
play and adult-initiated play (Garrik, 2009) This means that, it is more likely that
adults will be available to help minimise risks as they will be spending more time with
children in the outdoors due to the nature of the potential hazards in place (Garrik,
2009).
Theme 2: Promoting confidence- This theme links to theme 4 which is Outdoor risky
play and impact on academic achievement and theme 5 which is Risky play and
exercising danger. The three themes mainly focus on the purpose of risky play in the
outdoors. They look at the rational for risky play in the outdoors and how it affects not

only children’s confidence but their physical and cognitive development, Frost (1992)
claims there should be two classrooms for children; one the indoors and the other,
the outdoors. Outdoor play is used as an extension for the indoor classroom. It
should also be carefully planned to encourage motor and social skills (Frost, 1992).
The three themes refer back to the definition of play being wide and therefore
recognise and pin-point the fact that outdoor play actively involves children to
engage in different activities independently, with a partner or in a group. The three
themes also address that play is closely tied to the cognitive, socio-emotional and
motor development of young children (Ard and Pits, 1990).
The three themes also link with the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) (2016).
The three themes address how children should be able to use initiative. EYFS (2016)
states that children should ‘Be willing to have a go’ (Page 20), they should seek
challenges and be willing to take new risks in order to develop the view of learning
through failures. This address especially theme 5 ‘Addressing danger’ (EYFS, 2016).
Smidt (2009) refers to the work of Vygotsky (1943) who states that when children
play, it is a deep process where they make meaning out of the environment around
them through the use of imagination, therefore, play helps develop children’s social
imagination. They do not necessarily always need toys or any tools to play with and
therefore, the outdoors will prove a rich environment for them to make meaning out
of play (Vygotsky, (1943) in Smith (2009). Vygotsky’s theory particular relates to
theme 2, promoting confidence as it relates to the theory of ‘Zone of proximal
development’. When children play in the outdoors and face a risk that they may be
afraid of, when a practitioner or an adult helps them, it means that they move in to a
new zone of development, this also may mean that it has a positive effect on their
cognitive development and they start to question things.
Theme 5 talks about children exercising danger and this relates to Garrik (2009) who
refers to the work of Perry (2001) who argues that the outdoor setting may be the
one place where children will be able to articulate their own negations with the
physical and social environment around them. This will give them self-satisfaction
and skills they will learn may help them later in life (Perry, 2001 in Garrik, 2001). This

also has a link to what Vygotsky (1942) claims in Davidson (1996) where he
discusses that children gain problem-solving skills through outdoor play. They see
things from their own perspectives and make their own rules about how to access
and play games. When faced with unexpected problems, they think of ways of
resolving the issues and solving the problems. Vygotsky emphasises on how
problem-solving skills are much needed for all individuals and being able to grasp
those skills at an early stage of life will show that a child is faced with a rich play
environment (Davidson, 1996).
To summarise, in this section of the dissertation major themes derived from the
literature review have been analysed and has also compared the links between the
themes and related them to theory and literature to determine whether they are
strong or not in terms of how they are backed up with literature to answer the
dissertation question and what some key theorists have contributed towards this.

Recommendation for practice
This chapter of the dissertation is going to be drawing reasoned conclusions and
making recommendations for practice derived from some of the themes identified in
the literature review.
Some of the themes that occurred was Outdoor risky play and impact on academic
achievement, which said that the role of outdoor risky play is good for young children
because it means they can release their energy and also that this stimulates them by
allowing them to explore their territories with factors such as visual aids and using
fine motor skills by physically associating with risk (Constable and Green, 2012),
however this was refuted by Sandseter, Little and Wyver (2012) who claimed that
outdoor risky play can impede academic progress and can lead young children
astray which can become a concern for parents and carers, theme 2 says that in
risky play, if there is too much focus on children's safety, it can be problematic
because it may prevent children from not being able to explore and acquire an
understanding of what risks are and to develop physically and mentally (Knight,
2009), Knight (2009) also claims that if children are not exposed to risks, they will not
know what they are, if they inevitably face them, they will not know how to react to
them, through risky play in the outdoors, children manage to gain real life skills that
are transferable to dangerous situations, in conjunction to this theme 5 says refers to
Slade, Lowery and Bland (2013) who suggest from their research, for some children
being in the outdoors allows them to move away from the conventional play types
such as solitary or parallel play by getting them to associate with nature and handling
risks through experiencing them by physically engaging and mentally by assessing
dangers which is said to be positive on their social development and cognitive
development.

The three themes refer back to the definition of play being wide and therefore
recognise and pin-point the fact that outdoor play actively involves children to
engage in different activities independently, with a partner or in a group, the three
themes also address that play is closely tied to the cognitive, socio-emotional and
motor development of young children (Ard and Pits, 1990). Suggestions for how
these can work in practice would be to by looking at school curriculum and policies,
and by ensuring that the school works in conjunction to a national policy that ensures
that both elements of interactive learning and exploring their natural environment is
integrated into one, the suggestion to ensure that young children attain good
academic achievement whilst pursuing outdoor risky play would be the Early Years
Foundation Stage.
Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) (DfE, 2016) is used widely across early years’
educational settings and states that there are four main themes that underpin all the
guidance needed to support a child in learning through play. They are; A Unique
Child, Positive Relationships, Enabling Environments and Development. One of the
relevant themes that focus on risky play is ‘Enabling Environments’, this theme under
the policy states that children in the early years should be offered environments in
which they can learn to work with others and respect them, the environments should
offer stimulating yet safe resources that will enable children to explore, and they
should also support children through playful strategies to take risks such as though
verbal encouragement of their guardian or the teacher (DFE, 2016). The Early Years
Foundation (DFE 2016) states that children should ‘Be willing to have a go’ (Page
20), they should seek challenges and be willing to take new risks in order to develop
the view of learning through failures which can be a recommendation for practice in
terms of promoting confidence through repetition and exercising danger.

Theme 1 ‘physical features’ for outdoor risky play was that the risk' in children's play
is primarily focused on things such as unstable surfaces, sharp edges and the
maximum fall heights, research by Beate and Sandsetter (2009) shows that a lack of
supervision is one of the causes of children facing risks and injuries and discuss that
educating children about how to be aware of risks. In terms of how this could be
disseminated into practice by looking at educating parents into procedures for
accident awareness and prevention. According to Morrongiello et al (2014) all
parents are obligated to learn to protect their children’s physical welfare whilst
playing and whilst some parents may have a preliminary understanding of basic
safety such as covering sharp edges and supervising, this may be inadequate and
intervention may be appropriate as this way both the parent can learn how to ensure
safety and this can be taught and transferred to the child, taking this into
consideration how this can be applied to practice can be through a parent and child
play group.
According to Netmums (2016) Baby and toddler groups are a great place to meet
mums with children your child's age, and your child can make new friends too. The
groups are usually run by volunteers and provide a great play opportunity for your
child. Whilst often called Toddler groups, most groups welcome new mums and
babies too, with a dedicated area with soft mats and baby bouncer chairs and
parents are taught the significance of play and how to eliminate risks and teach this
to their child. Toddler groups are unstructured and predominantly a free play session
with a break for refreshments. At the end there may be a story or song time
(Netmums, 2016).

OFFICIAL DISSERTATION 2016

More Related Content

OFFICIAL DISSERTATION 2016