official dissertation 2016

Student Name: Salma BegumStudent Number: B3007712Module: Dissertation (Working with Children, Young People & Families)Tutor: Richard Martin

Sheffield Hallam UniversityBA (Hons) Working With Children, Young People

& FamiliesUndergraduate Research Project

Salma Begum

How does outdoor risky play help with the social development of young children?

Tutor: Richard MartinCompleted 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…………………………………………………………………. 5-40

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:Source: Critical Thinking (2008)-Figure 3: Critical Questions

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 playSmith (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:

Source: Critical Thinking (2008)-Figure 3: Critical Questions

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 Anglo Australian

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:Source: Critical Thinking (2008)-Figure 3: Critical Questions

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:

Source: Critical Thinking (2008)-Figure 3: Critical Questions

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).


Theme 3 was ’parental attitudes as a barrier to accessing outdoor risky play’

supported by Little, Wyver and Gibson (2011) who said 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 with risks. In terms of how this

could be disseminated into practice could be by raising parent’s awareness of how to

liberate their children into risky play situations and have a better understanding of

what could pose as a threat to their children and what could be healthy, according to

Hoque, Tse and Rossen (2011) injuries are influenced by individual’s attitudes and

risk taking behaviours and that the identification of these factors is vital for the

development of effective injury prevention strategies, also they say that intervention

may be appropriate for some parent/carers because what they may identify as risk

may be major and not detrimental to their child’s welfare, and that the fear may stem

from the thought of children sustaining injury which is something intervention can aim

to resolve.

Recommendations for how this can work in practice can be through sending parents

to classes on how to build effective relationships with their children, because parents

restricting children from accessing outdoor risky play has the potential to impact at-

tachment by either causing the child to become dependent on the parent too much

or it could be that the child may become distant from parents and this can affect rela-

tionships in the future. Recommendations for how this can be used in practice is by

using a parenting programme, specifically the incredible years parenting pro-

gramme’, which can offer a toddler programme consisting of covering factors such

as; helping their toddlers feel loved and secure, encouraging their toddler’s lan-

guage, social, and emotional development, establish clear and predictable routines,

handle separations and reunions and using positive discipline to manage misbeha-

viour (Incredible years, 2013). From what is available from the early year’s toddler

programme, parents can get a better understanding of hazard awareness and spe-

cifically what constitutes a risk and how to reduce or eliminate this, encouragement

to engage with appropriate risks as well as transferring this onto their children as the

programme also offers support on behaviour management and discipline.


To conclude, this chapter of the dissertation has drawn reasoned conclusions and

made recommendations for practice derived from some of the themes identified in

the literature review by looking at interventions and how these would fit within the

themes and facilitate outdoor risky play and help with social development.


Conclusion

In conclusion, the research covered outdoor risky play and how this may help with

the social development of young children, as part of this, existing empirical and

theoretical literature regarding outdoor risky play and social development were

reviewed, categorised into 5 themes consisting of physical features, promoting

confidence, parental attitudes as a barrier to accessing outdoor risky play, outdoor

risky play and effect on academic achievement, risky play and exercising danger and

critiqued. The research explored outdoor risky play and its historical context by

defining social development derived from qualitative research, also the dissertation

has looked into recommendations as to how some of the themes identified from the

literature review can be applied into practice by talking about interventions and

specifically how they may facilitate the themes.

The research found that overall outdoor risky play has a positive impact on children’s

social development because majority of literature suggest that risky play in the

outdoor encourages teamwork, visualising danger, and encourages spending and

strengthening relationships with parents. The research also found that parent’s

suggestions may become a barrier therefore to dispel misconceptions parents are

recommended to become educated on the benefits and how to trust their children

around danger, in this dissertation also it is found that schools are still inconsistent in

making use of the outdoor environment even though the early year’s foundation

stage suggest the outdoors can become a rich learning and stimulating environment

for children and recommendations of how to improve this have been made.


Appendices

Content

Methodology chart (Systematic search strategy)

Methodology section reading list (Narrative section)

Analysis section reading list

Literature review section reading list

Recommendation for practice section reading list

Introduction section reading list

Definition section reading list


Appendix 1: Methodology Chart

(Systematic search strategy)

Date: Database name: Keywords/terms used

Database headings

Search limitations(Inclusions)

Search limitations(Exclusion

s)

Number of

results

Notes-relevance of

results

19/01/16 Brussoni et al (2012)

Scopus Outdoor/risky/play

Outdoor learning

Adventure

Peer reviewed journal articles

Books

Article in press

Reviews

24 Looked at 15 articles however 1 was relevant

6/03/16

Slade, Lowery and Bland (2013)

ProQuest education journals

/forest/school/education

Schools and learning

Schoolenvironment education

Peer reviewed journals

Trade journals

MagazinesNewspaper

1,639 Looked at first 10 journals however 1 was relevant

15/01/16

Thornton and Brutton (2007)

Library gateway

Advanced search

Reggio/Emilia/early/years

Early childhood education

Education, preschool

Educators

Books and E-books


44 Looked at first 4 results, however 1 was relevant

10/01/16

Beate & Sandseter (2009)

British education index

Boolean operator

*Characteristics*of*risky*play

N/A Peer reviewed journals

Books/E-Books

2 Looked at 2 of the available resources, however I found 1 relevant

14/02/16

Sandseter and Kennair (2011)

PsychoINFO Risky play Learning AND students

Learning AND parenting


Methodology-excluding mathematical mode and treatment

443 Looked at first 20 results, however I found 1 journal relevant


outcome

20/01/16

Constable & Green (2012)

Library gateway

Advanced search

Enriching/learning/outdoor

Outdoor education

Amusement

Lesson planning

Books/E-Books

Reviews

Conference proceedings

Articles & newspaper articles

5 Looked at all 5 results, however, I found 1 result relevent

5/02/16

Knight (2009)

Sheffield Hallam University Library catalogue

Outdoor/learning/early/years

Understanding outdoors

Authority

Books/E-Books

Journals

Exam papers

Thesis

Video & audio online

29 Looked at first 4 books, however found 1 book relevant

20/01/16

Little (2006)

British Education Index

Children’s risk taking behaviour

Children’s risk taking


Full text

Cover story

9 Looked at 5 out of the 9 results, however I found 1 journal relevant

20/01/16

Rinaldi (2005)

Library gateway

Advanced search

Reggio/Emilia/learning


Reggio Emilia approach

Education, Preschool

Books/E-Books


Government documents

Newspaper articles & reviews

49 Looked at first 7 results, however I found one E-Book relevant

19/03/16Smith (1998)

Education Abstracts (EBSCO Host)

Boolean operator

Risk*on*the*playground

Children’s risk perception

Books/E-Books

Academic journals

Magazines

6 Looked at all 6 results, however I found 1 research relevant

21/01/16 Google Scholar Statutory framework for

N/A Articles Non 1 I found 1 relevant


DFE (2012 the early year’s foundation stage

Include patents

Case laws

evidence and used this

20/03/16

Siegfredson (2012)

Education Databases on ProQUEST

Early years education in practice

Early childhood

Education & youth

professional practice

Books/E-Books


Thesis

Magazines & newspaper

550 I looked at the first 20 results, however I found I research relevant

20/01/16

Tovey (2007)

Library gateway

Advanced search

Boolean operator

Playing*outdoor

Outdoor recreation for children


Books/E-Books

Thesis


Magazines

Exam papers

70 I looked at the first 6o results, however I found one piece of evidence relevant

3/03/16

Wirth & Rosenow (2012)

Education databases on ProQuest

Basic search

Nature filled classrooms

Nature and philosophy

Nature and science education classroom

Scholarly journals

Thesis

Trade journals

Magazine

8, 541 results

I looked at the first 20 results, however I found 1 resource relevant

8/3/16Strickland

(1999)

Education databases

on ProQUEST

Basic search

Building con-fidence

through out-door play

Play AND children &

youth

Play & play-ground

Play & out-door activit-

Peer re-viewed journals

Dissertations & thesis

Scholarly journals

Reports

Newspapers

2,127

found 1 result to be rel


ies Magazines

9/3/16Sandseter,

Little & Wyver (2012)

Scopus Provision for outdoor learn-

ing

Social sci-ences

Psychology

Articles

Year: 2012

Books

Conference papers

Reviews

28 I looked at all the available 28 res

ever I found 1 to be rel

5/3/16Ugur Baysal, Oz & Gok-

cay, (2012).

Library gateway

Advanced search

Determination/of/

outdoor/risk

Outdoor play

Risk as-sessment

Peer re-viewed journals

Articles

Reviews

Books/E-Books

Conference proceedings

Newspaper articles

91 I Looked at first 30 res

ever I found


Methodology,

Narrative section reading list

Morrison, K. (2014). What is qualitative research?. [Online]. Educational Research

and Evaluation. (20). (Issue: 4). PP. 328-329. Last accessed on 11th March 2016 at:

http://www.tandfonline.com.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/doi/pdf/

10.1080/13803611.2014.915135

Van Aalst, Jan. (2010). Using Google Scholar to Estimate the Impact of Journal

Articles in Education. [Online]. Educational Researcher. (39). (Issue: 5). PP.387-400.

Last accessed on 12th March 2016 at:

http://www.jstor.org.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/stable/pdf/40793323.pdf?acceptTC=true

Haddaway, N., Collins, A., Coughlin, D., & Kirk, S. (2015). The Role of Google

Scholar in Evidence Reviews and Its Applicability to Grey Literature Searching.

[Online]. PloS One. (10). (Issue: 9). E0138237. Last accessed on 13th March 2016

at:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4574933/pdf/pone.0138237.pdf

Northway, R. (2003). Longitudinal research. [Online]. Nurse Researcher. (10).(Issue:

3). PP. 84-85. Last accessed on 14th March 2016 at:

http://search.proquest.com.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/docview/200811980/fulltextPDF/

BD62265F24204CB7PQ/1?accountid=13827

http://search.proquest.com.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/docview/200811980/fulltextPDF/BD62265F24204CB7PQ/1?accountid=13827




http://www.tandfonline.com.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1080/13803611.2014.915135


Student Name: Salma BegumStudent Number: B3007712Module: Dissertation (Working with Children, Young People & Families)Tutor: Richard Martin Björk, Bo-Christer, & Solomon, David. (2013). The publishing delay in scholarly peer-

reviewed journals. [Online]. Journal of Informetrics. (7). (Issue: 4). PP. 914-923. Last

accessed on 21st March 2016 at:

http://ac.els-cdn.com.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/S1751157713000734/1-s2.0-

S1751157713000734-main.pdf?_tid=f36010ca-efa4-11e5-84e7-

00000aacb35e&acdnat=1458592924_001389d4defddf3cab3a9658c63521a2

Davis‐Kean, P., Jager, J., & Maslowsky, J. (2015). Answering Developmental

Questions Using Secondary Data. [Online]. Child Development Perspectives. (9). (Issue: 4). PP. 256-261. Last accessed on 21st March 2016 at:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/doi/10.1111/cdep.12151/pdf

Betty K. Oldroyd, & J.J. Schroder. (1982). Study of strategies used in online

searching&colon; 2. [Online]. Positional Logic & mdash; an example of the

importance of selecting the right Boolean operator. (6). (Issue: 2). PP. 127-133.Last

accessed on 22nd March 2016 at:

http://www.emeraldinsight.com.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/eb024094



http://ac.els-cdn.com.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/S1751157713000734/1-s2.0-S1751157713000734-main.pdf?_tid=f36010ca-efa4-11e5-84e7-00000aacb35e&acdnat=1458592924_001389d4defddf3cab3a9658c63521a2




Analysis Reading List

Ard, L. & Pitts, M. (Eds.). (1990). Room to grow: How to create quality early childhood environments. Austin, TX: Texas Association for the Education of Young Children. Last accessed on 18th April 2016.

Cevher-Kalburan, N., & Ivrendi, A. (2016). Risky Play and Parenting Styles. [Online]. Journal of Child and Family Studies. (25). (Issue:2). PP.355-366. Last accessed on 18th April 2016 at:

http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/788/art%253A10.1007%252Fs10826-015-0236-1.pdf?originUrl=http%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Farticle%2F10.100

Davidson Films. (1996). Play : A Vygotskian approach (Early childhood series). Bristol: Classroom Video.

Frost, J.L. (1992). Play and playscapes. Albany, NY: Delmar. G. Last accessed on 18th April 2016.

Garrick, R., & Dawsonera. (2009). Playing outdoors in the early years (2nd ed.). London: Continuum.

Jambor, T. & Palmer, S.D. (1991). Playground safety manual. Birmingham, AL: The Alabama Chapter of American Academy of Pediatrics. Last accessed on 18th April 2016

Standards & Testing Agency. (2016). Early Years Foundation Stage Profile: 2016 Handbook. [Online]. Last accessed on 18th April 2016 at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/488745/EYFS_handbook_2016_-_FINAL.pdf






Student Name: Salma BegumStudent Number: B3007712Module: Dissertation (Working with Children, Young People & Families)Tutor: Richard Martin Smidt, S., & Dawsonera. (2009). Introducing Vygotsky a guide for practitioners and students in the early years. [Online]. London: Routledge. Last accessed on 22nd April 2016 at: https://www.dawsonera.com/readonline/9781315824185

https://www.dawsonera.com/readonline/9781315824185


Literature review

Reading list

Beate, E. and Sandseter, H. (2009). Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning. [Online]. Characteristics of Risky Play. (9). (Issue: 2). PP. 3-21. Article from ProQuest Educational Journals last accessed 10th January 2016 at: http://www.tandfonline.com.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1080/14729670802702762

Brussoni, M., Olsen,L. L., Pike,E. and David, A. (2012). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. [Online]. Risky Play and Children's Safety: Balancing Priorities for Optimal Child Development. (9) (Issue: 9). PP. 3134-3148. Article from ProQuest Educational Journals last accessed 19th January 2016 at: http://search.proquest.com.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/docview/1086344998/fulltextPDF?accountid=13827

Constable, K. and Green, S. (2012). The outdoor classroom ages 3-7: Using ideas from Forest School to enrich learning. [Online]. Abingdon, Routledge. Book from Dawsonera last accessed 20th January 2016 at: https://www.dawsonera.com/readonline/9780203817216

Critical Thinking (2008). Learning Development. [Online] [pdf]. Last Accessed on 11th April 2016 at:

https://shuspace.shu.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-6168514-dt-content-rid-11594337_2/courses/66-6618-00N-A-20156/8_criticalthinking_summary1.pdf

Knight, S. (2009). Forest Schools and Outdoor Learning in Early Years. London, Sage Publications.




Student Name: Salma BegumStudent Number: B3007712Module: Dissertation (Working with Children, Young People & Families)Tutor: Richard Martin Little, H. (2006). International Journal of Early Education. [Online]. Children's Risk Taking Behaviour: Implications for Early Childhood Policy and Practice. (14). (Issue: 2). PP. 141-154. Last Accessed On 20th January 2016 At:

http://www.tandfonline.com.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1080/09669760600661427

Rinaldi, C. (2005). In Dialogue with Reggio Emilia: Listening, Researching and Learning. [Online]. London, Routledge. Online Publisher Taylor & Francis last accessed 20th January 2016 at:

http://reader.eblib.com/%28S%285cgqpgdhq00v0wk1vtjena0w%29%29/

Reader.aspx?p=199505&o=136&u=ecUlaNGRe3cxIEIYHFR9zoAPlBw

%3d&t=1456937671&h=64451623BF8D0702D15254EEED0F08E9E2EA0DF5&s=4

2728843&ut=323&pg=1&r=img&c=-1&pat=n&cms=-1&sd=2

Sandseter, E., & Kennair, L. (2011). Children's risky play from an evolutionary

perspective: The anti-phobic effects of thrilling experiences. Evolutionary

Psychology: An International Journal of Evolutionary Approaches to Psychology and

Behaviour. (9).(Issue: 2). PP. 257-84. Last Accessed On 14th February 2016 At:

http://evp.sagepub.com/content/9/2/147470491100900212.full.pdf+html

Smith, S. (1998). Risk and out Pedagogical Relation to Children: On the Playground

and Beyond. New York, New York Press.

http://reader.eblib.com/(S(5cgqpgdhq00v0wk1vtjena0w))/Reader.aspx?p=199505&o=136&u=ecUlaNGRe3cxIEIYHFR9zoAPlBw%3D&t=1456937671&h=64451623BF8D0702D15254EEED0F08E9E2EA0DF5&s=42728843&ut=323&pg=1&r=img&c=-1&pat=n&cms=-1&sd=2



Student Name: Salma BegumStudent Number: B3007712Module: Dissertation (Working with Children, Young People & Families)Tutor: Richard Martin Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage. (DfE), (2012). Setting

the Standards for Learning, Development and Care for Children from Birth to Five.

[pdf], London, National Archives last accessed 21st January 2016 at:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/https://www.education.go

v.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/EYFS%20Statutory%20Framework.pdf

Siegfredsen, M.J. (2012). Understanding the Danish Forest School Approach: Early

Years Education in Practice. Oxon, Routledge.

Slade, M., Lowery, C. and Bland, K. (2013). Support for Learning. [Online].

Evaluating the Impact of Forest Schools: A Collaboration between a University and a

Primary School. (28). (Issue: 2). PP. 66-72. Article from Wiley Online Library last

accessed on 6th February 2016 At:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/doi/10.1111/1467-9604.12020/pdf

Strickland, E. (1999). How to build confidence through outdoor play. [Online].

Scholastic Early Childhood Today. (13). (Issue: 7). PP.39-40. Article from ProQuest

education journals. Last accessed on 8th March 2016 at:

http://search.proquest.com.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/docview/217919613/fulltextPDF/

83B4CBE0C5614DADPQ/1?accountid=13827

http://search.proquest.com.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/docview/217919613/fulltextPDF/83B4CBE0C5614DADPQ/1?accountid=13827


Student Name: Salma BegumStudent Number: B3007712Module: Dissertation (Working with Children, Young People & Families)Tutor: Richard Martin Sandseter, E., Little, H., & Wyver, S. (2012). Do theory and pedagogy have an

impact on provisions for outdoor learning? A comparison of approaches in Australia

and Norway. [Online]. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning. (12). (Issue: 3). PP.167-182. Last accessed on 9th March 2016 at:

http://www.tandfonline.com.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/doi/pdf/

10.1080/14729679.2012.699800

Tovey, H. (2007). Playing Outdoors: Spaces, Places, Risk and Challenge. London,

Open University Press

Thornton, L. and Bruton, P. (2007). Bringing the Reggio Approach to your Early

Years Practice. Oxon, Routledge

Ugur Baysal, S., Oz, S., & Gokcay, E. (2012). Determination of risks and risk

awareness for indoor and outdoor injuries in 0–5 years old children during child

health surveillance. [Online]. Injury Prevention. (18). (Issue: 1). Last accessed on 5th

March 2016 at:

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/18/Suppl_1/A112.4.full.pdf+html

Wirth, S. and Rosenow, N. (2012). Young Children. [Online]. Whole Children

Learning: In Nature Filled Classrooms. (67). (Issue: 1). PP. 42-48. Article from

ProQuest Educational Journals. Last accessed February 3rd 2016 at:

http://search.proquest.com.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/docview/927664919/fulltextPDF?

accountid=13827





Recommendation for practice

Reading list

Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage. (DfE), (2012). Setting the Standards for Learning, Development and Care for Children from Birth to Five. [pdf], London, National Archives last accessed 21st January 2016 at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/EYFS%20Statutory%20Framework.pdf

Ard, L. & Pitts, M. (Eds.). (1990). Room to grow: How to create quality early childhood environments. Austin, TX: Texas Association for the Education of Young Children.

Sandseter, E., Little, H., & Wyver, S. (2012). Do theory and pedagogy have an impact on provisions for outdoor learning? A comparison of approaches in Australia and Norway. [Online]. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning. (12). (Issue: 3). PP.167-182. Last accessed on 9th March 2016 at:






Slade, M., Lowery, C. and Bland, K. (2013). Support for Learning. [Online]. Evaluating the Impact of Forest Schools: A Collaboration between a University and a Primary School. (28). (Issue: 2). PP. 66-72. Article from Wiley Online Library last accessed on 6th February 2016 At: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/doi/10.1111/1467-9604.12020/pdf



Morrongiello, Barbara A., McArthur, Brae Anne, & Bell, Melissa. (2014). Managing children's risk of injury in the home: Does parental teaching about home safety reduce young children's hazard interactions? [Online]. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (Issue:71). PP.194-200. Last accessed on 30th April 2016 at:

http://ac.els-cdn.com.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/S0001457514001262/1-s2.0-S0001457514001262-main.pdf?_tid=4d95f62c-0f12-11e6-98f0-00000aab0f02&acdnat=1462048376_55f63aea03d3a4b131eb58089f5ad05d

Netmums. (2016).[Online]. Last accessed at 30th April 2016 at:

http://www.netmums.com/local-to-you/places-to-go/parent-and-toddler-groups






Little, H., Wyver, S. and Gibson, F. (2011). European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. [Online]. The Influence of Play Context and Adult Attitudes on Young Children's Physical Risk-Taking during Outdoor Play. (19). (Issue: 1). PP. 113-131. Last Accessed On 20th January 2016 At:

http://www.tandfonline.com.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1080/1350293X.2011.548959

M. Ekramul Hoque, Samson Tse, & Fiona Rossen. (2011). Knowledge and attitude of young Asians towards injury prevention in New Zealand: A qualitative analysis. International Journal of Migration. [Online]. Health and Social Care. (Issue7). (2). PP. 93-105. Last accessed on 30th April 2016 at:

http://www.emeraldinsight.com.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/17479891111180066

The Incredible Years: Parents, Teachers and Children Training Series. (2013). [Online]. Last accessed on 30th April 2016 at:

http://incredibleyears.com/programs/parent/toddler-curriculum/





Introduction

Reading list


Thornton, L. and Bruton, P. (2007). Bringing the Reggio Approach to your Early Years Practice. Oxon, Routledge


Joyce, R. (2012). Outdoor Learning: Past and Present. London. Open University Press.

Hanawalt, B. (1993). Growing up in the Medieval London: The experience of Childhood History. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Janni, N. and Taplin, T. J. (2012). Understanding the Steiner Waldrof Approach: Early Years Education in Practice. Oxon, Routledge.

Student Name: Salma BegumStudent Number: B3007712Module: Dissertation (Working with Children, Young People & Families)Tutor: Richard Martin Taylor, S. I., Rogers, C.S., Dodd, A. T., Kaneda, T., Nagasaki, I. and Watanabe, Y. (2004). Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education. [Online]. The Meaning of Play: A Cross- Cultural Study of American and Japanese Teacher's Perspectives on Play. (24). (Issue: 4). PP. 311- 321. Article from Taylor & Francis. Last accessed on 8th January 2016 at: http://www.tandfonline.com.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1080/1090102040240411


Definition section

Reading list

Brussoni, M., Olsen,L. L., Pike,E. and David, A. (2012). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. [Online]. Risky Play and Children's Safety: Balancing Priorities for Optimal Child Development. (9) (Issue: 9). PP. 3134-3148. Article from ProQuest Educational Journals last accessed 19th January 2016 at: http://search.proquest.com.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/docview/1086344998/fulltextPDF?accountid=13827

Little, H. (2015). Mothers' beliefs about risk and risk-taking in children's outdoor play. [Online]. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning : JAEOL. (15). (Issue:1). PP. 24. Last Accessed On 19th January 2016 At:http://www.tandfonline.com.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1080/14729679.2013.842178


Bibliography: 45

Ard, L. & Pitts, M. (Eds.). (1990). Room to grow: How to create quality early childhood environments. Austin, TX: Texas Association for the Education of Young Children.


Brussoni, M., Olsen,L. L., Pike,E. and David, A. (2012). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. [Online]. Risky Play and Children's Safety: Balancing Priorities for Optimal Child Development. (9) (Issue: 9). PP. 3134-314 8. Article from ProQuest Educational Journals last accessed 19th January 2016 at: http://search.proquest.com.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/docview/1086344998/fulltextPDF?accountid=13827z

Björk, Bo-Christer, & Solomon, David. (2013). The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. [Online]. Journal of Informetrics. (7). (Issue: 4). PP. 914-923. Last accessed on 21st March 2016 at:






Betty K. Oldroyd, & J.J. Schroder. (1982). Study of strategies used in online searching&colon; 2. [Online]. Positional Logic & mdash; an example of the importance of selecting the right Boolean operator. (6). (Issue: 2). PP. 127-133.Last accessed on 22nd March 2016 at:



Critical Thinking (2008). Learning Development. [Online] [pdf]. Last Accessed on 11th April 2016 at:


Cevher-Kalburan, N., & Ivrendi, A. (2016). Risky Play and Parenting Styles. [Online]. Journal of Child and Family Studies. (25). (Issue:2). PP.355-366. Last accessed on 18th April 2016 at:


Davis‐Kean, P., Jager, J., & Maslowsky, J. (2015). Answering Developmental Questions Using Secondary Data. [Online]. Child Development Perspectives. (9). (Issue: 4). PP. 256-261. Last accessed on 21st March 2016 at:










Davidson Films. (1996). Play : A Vygotskian approach (Early childhood series). Bristol: Classroom Video.

Eric, S. (1999). Scholastic Early Childhood Today. [Online]. How to Build Confidence through Outdoor Play. 13. (Issue: 7), pp. 39. Article from ProQuest last accessed 8th January 2016 at: http://media.proquest.com.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/media/pq/classic/doc/62931319

Frost, J.L. (1992). Play and playscapes. Albany, NY: Delmar. G. Last accessed on 18th April 2016.

Garrick, R., & Dawsonera. (2009). Playing outdoors in the early years (2nd ed.). London: Continuum. Last accessed on 22nd April 2016

Hanawalt, B. (1993). Growing up in the Medieval London: The experience of Childhood History. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Huston, A. (2002). Reforms and child development. [Online]. Future Of Children. (12). (Issue: 1). PP. 59-77. Last Accessed On 16th February At:


Haddaway, N., Collins, A., Coughlin, D., & Kirk, S. (2015). The Role of Google Scholar in Evidence Reviews and Its Applicability to Grey Literature Searching. [Online]. PloS One. (10). (Issue: 9). E0138237. Last accessed on 13th March 2016 at:




Janni, N. and Taplin, T. J. (2012). Understanding the Steiner Waldrof Approach: Early Years Education in Practice. Oxon, Routledge.

Joyce, R. (2012). Outdoor Learning: Past and Present. London. Open University Press.

Jambor, T. & Palmer, S.D. (1991). Playground safety manual. Birmingham, AL: The Alabama Chapter of American Academy of Pediatrics. Last accessed on 18th April 2016


Little, H. (2006). International Journal of Early Education. [Online]. Children's Risk Taking Behaviour: Implications for Early Childhood Policy and Practice. (14). (Issue: 2). PP. 141-154. Last Accessed On 2oth January 2016 At:

http://www.tandfonline.com.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1080/09669760600661427

Little, H., Wyver, S. and Gibson, F. (2011). European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. [Online]. The Influence of Play Context and Adult Attitudes on Young Children's Physical Risk-Taking during Outdoor Play. (19). (Issue: 1). PP. 113-131. Last Accessed On 20th January 2016 At:

http://www.tandfonline.com.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1080/1350293X.2011.548959


Little, H. (2015). Mothers' beliefs about risk and risk-taking in children's outdoor play. [Online]. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning : JAEOL. (15). (Issue:1). PP. 24. Last Accessed On 19th January 2016 At:http://www.tandfonline.com.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1080/14729679.2013.842178

Morrison, K. (2014). What is qualitative research?. [Online]. Educational Research and Evaluation. (20). (Issue: 4). PP. 328-329. Last accessed on 11th March 2016 at:


Morrongiello, Barbara A., McArthur, Brae Anne, & Bell, Melissa. (2014). Managing children's risk of injury in the home: Does parental teaching about home safety reduce young children's hazard interactions? [Online]. Accident Analysis and Prevention. (Issue:71). PP.194-200. Last accessed on 30th April 2016 at:


M. Ekramul Hoque, Samson Tse, & Fiona Rossen. (2011). Knowledge and attitude of young Asians towards injury prevention in New Zealand: A qualitative analysis. International Journal of Migration. [Online]. Health and Social Care. (Issue7). (2). PP. 93-105. Last accessed on 30th April 2016 at:






Student Name: Salma BegumStudent Number: B3007712Module: Dissertation (Working with Children, Young People & Families)Tutor: Richard Martin http://www.emeraldinsight.com.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/17479891111180066

Northway, R. (2003). Longitudinal research. [Online]. Nurse Researcher. (10).(Issue: 3). PP. 84-85. Last accessed on 14th March 2016 at:


Netmums. (2016).[Online]. Last accessed at 30th April 2016 at:


Rinaldi, C. (2005). In Dialogue with Reggio Emilia: Listening, Researching and Learning. [Online]. London, Routledge. Online Publisher Taylor & Francis last accessed 20th January 2016 at:

http://reader.eblib.com/%28S%28xqhrku4ogq5kauo2vx03lzkx%29%29/Reader.aspx?p=199505&o=136&u=ecUlaNGRe3cxIEIYHFR9zoAPlBw%3d&t=1456172921&h=6C79D6F90604A8625B0BF5CBFCCC832C5D797753&s=42454884&ut=323&pg=1&r=img&c=-1&pat=n&cms=-1&sd=2

Sandseter, E. and Kennair, L. (2011). Evolutionary Psychology: An International Journal of Evolutionary Approaches to Psychology and Behaviour. [Online]. Children's Risky Play from an Evolutionary Perspective: The Anti-phobic effects of thrilling experiences. (9). (Issue: 2). PP. 257-284. Last Accessed On 3rd January 2016 At: http://evp.sagepub.com/content/9/2/147470491100900212.full.pdf+html






Student Name: Salma BegumStudent Number: B3007712Module: Dissertation (Working with Children, Young People & Families)Tutor: Richard Martin Smith, S. (1998). Risk and out Pedagogical Relation to Children: On the Playground and Beyond. New York, New York Press.

Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage. (DfE), (2012). Setting the Standards for Learning, Development and Care for Children from Birth to Five. [pdf], London, National Archives last accessed 21st January 2016 at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/EYFS%20Statutory%20Framework.pdf

Siegfredsen, M.J. (2012). Understanding the Danish Forest School Approach: Early Years Education in Practice. Oxon, Routledge.

Slade, M., Lowery, C. and Bland, K. (2013). Support for Learning. [Online]. Evaluating the Impact of Forest Schools: A Collaboration between a University and a Primary School. (28). (Issue: 2). PP. 66-72. Article from Wiley Online Library last accessed on 6th February 2016 At: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/doi/10.1111/1467-9604.12020/pdf

Strickland, E. (1999). How to build confidence through outdoor play. [Online]. Scholastic Early Childhood Today. (13). (Issue: 7). PP.39-40. Article from ProQuest education journals. Last accessed on 8th March 2016 at:





Sandseter, E., Little, H., & Wyver, S. (2012). Do theory and pedagogy have an impact on provisions for outdoor learning? A comparison of approaches in Australia and Norway. [Online]. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning. (12). (Issue: 3). PP.167-182. Last accessed on 9th March 2016 at:


Standards & Testing Agency. (2016). Early Years Foundation Stage Profile: 2016 Handbook. [Online]. Last accessed on 18th April 2016 at:


Smidt, S., & Dawsonera. (2009). Introducing Vygotsky a guide for practitioners and students in the early years. [Online]. London: Routledge. Last accessed on 22nd April 2016 at: https://www.dawsonera.com/readonline/9781315824185

Taylor, S. I., Rogers, C.S., Dodd, A. T., Kaneda, T., Nagasaki, I. and Watanabe, Y. (2004). Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education. [Online]. The Meaning of Play: A Cross- Cultural Study of American and Japanese Teacher's Perspectives on Play. (24). (Issue: 4). PP. 311- 321. Article from Taylor & Francis. Last accessed on 8th January 2016 at: http://www.tandfonline.com.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/doi/pdf/10.1080/1090102040240411






Student Name: Salma BegumStudent Number: B3007712Module: Dissertation (Working with Children, Young People & Families)Tutor: Richard Martin Tovey, H. (2007). Playing Outdoors: Spaces, Places, Risk and Challenge. London, Open University Press

Thornton, L. and Bruton, P. (2007). Bringing the Reggio Approach to your Early Years Practice. Oxon, Routledge

The Incredible Years: Parents, Teachers and Children Training Series. (2013). [Online]. Last accessed on 30th April 2016 at:


Van Aalst, Jan. (2010). Using Google Scholar to Estimate the Impact of Journal Articles in Education. [Online]. Educational Researcher. (39). (Issue: 5). PP.387-400. Last accessed on 12th March 2016 at:


Wirth, S. and Rosenow, N. (2012). Young Children. [Online]. Whole Children Learning: In Nature Filled Classrooms. (67). (Issue: 1). PP. 42-48. Article from ProQuest Educational Journals. Last accessed February 3rd 2016 at: http://search.proquest.com.lcproxy.shu.ac.uk/docview/927664919/fulltextPDF?accountid=13827

Ugur Baysal, S., Oz, S., & Gokcay, E. (2012). Determination of risks and risk awareness for indoor and outdoor injuries in 0–5 years old children during child health surveillance. Injury Prevention. (18). (Issue: 1). Last accessed on 5th March 2016 at: http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/18/Suppl_1/A112.4.full.pdf+html




official dissertation 2016

Documents