THE COGNITIVE PLAY BEHAVIOR AFFORDANCES OF NATURAL AND
MANUFACTURED ELEMENTS WITHIN OUTDOOR PRESCHOOL
SETTINGS
ZAMANI, ZAHRA
PhD candidate, College of Design, 200 Pullen Road, NCSU, 27695, zzamani@ncsu.edu
MOORE, ROBIN
Professor of landscape architecture, College of Design, 200 Pullen Road, NCSU, 27695,
robin_moore@ncsu.edu
1
ABSTRACT
Considering the significance of natural environments for children’s mental and physical
development, outdoor preschool settings can be critical resources in providing chances for daily contact
with nature. Based on Gibson, affordances are functional properties of the environment that suggest
specific behavioral options to individuals. Through the application of affordance theory, this study aimed to
explore how the physical environment features of two outdoor learning environments composed of a
variety of manufactured and natural settings, can afford cognitive play behavior of children. Additionally,
the research intended to extend knowledge relating to the association of naturally designed outdoor
preschool settings and children’s cognitive play behavior. Through behavior mapping of 62, four-to-five
year old children, 471 data points were collected. The results revealed the significance of natural elements
in affording all five types of cognitive play behaviors. Natural loose elements had considerable potentiality
in affording constructive, dramatic and exploratory play behaviors. In contrast, manufactured fixed
elements mostly afforded one type of cognitive play behavior: functional. Exploratory play was the least
afforded type of behavior within both outdoor preschool setting which suggests the increase of
implementing natural features affording discovery and engaging play opportunities. The results of this
study points out the reconsideration of implementing manufactured fixed elements that mostly afford a
one-dimensional cognitive function for children. The findings also accentuate the importance of integrating
natural elements that can be shaped, explored, and experimented by children in outdoor preschool
settings, while providing them daily opportunities to acknowledge nature and develop a sense of
stewardship.
1.1
Keywords
affordance, outdoor learning
manufactured elements
environment,
cognitive
play
behavior,
natural
elements,
2
INTRODUCTION
Humans have a strong physical, mental, and spiritual connection with nature, explained with
theories such as Biophilia (Maller, Townsend, Brown, and St Leger, 2002). Direct contact with natural
outdoor environments enables children to develop a bond between themselves and nature (Kahn and
Kellert, 2002; Kellert, 2002), while having many positive effects for child development (Freuder, 2006).
However, current children in U.S. are growing disconnected from nature’s healthy benefits (Louv, 2005).
In fact, urbanization has reduced nature-based recreation (Van den Berg, Hartig, and Staats, 2007) and
contact opportunities with natural elements for children (Rivkin, 1990).
On the other hand, while today’s children have limited time for outdoor play and contact with
nature spaces (Cosco, Moore, Thigpen, Verzaro- O’Brien, and Mendel, 2005), the physical features of
outdoor learning environments are not corresponding to children’s appeal for diverse, stimulating learning
environments (Fjortoft and Sageie, 2000; Francis, 1998). The association between the type of equipment
and its assembly on children’s behavior and experience has been recognized by designers (Frost and
Campbell, 1985). Several studies have explored the relationship of various outdoor environments on
children’s play behavior (Frost and Campbell, 1985; Frost and Klein, 1983, etc.). However, these studies
mostly focus of the association of outdoor equipment on children’s behavior, without considering the
impact of the various existing attributes of the play environment (Kytta, 2003). Additionally, most of these
studies have concentrated on school–age children, not providing adequate insight on preschool children’s
environmental requisites (Hart & Sheehan, 1986).
2.1
The Affordance Theory
Gibson (1979) describes affordances as functional properties of the environment that suggest
specific options to the individual. He explains that Individuals understand information by perceiving the
relation between objects, and happenings, space layout and their abilities. Heft (1988) explains how
describing and analyzing environments based on their functional significance alters the way we see and
perceive the environment. Differentiating environmental features based on functional variation would be a
more meaningful approach in terms of a psychological perspective. The taxonomy of outdoor
environments based on their functional attributes can provide a standard form-based organization that has
a psychological value (Heft, 1988). If specific environmental attributes can be related to children’s
behavior, we can identify practical or pedagogical importance of the relationship between physical
environment global quality and children’s developmental status (Kontos et al., 2002).
To understand the functional properties of an environment, the environment-behavior relationship
can be explored associated with the type of occurred activities. Heft (1988) explains how each activity can
be defined in relation to some functional characteristics of the environment, referring to the particular
individual. In other words, each activity is conjunct with some affordance. Object classification based on
their functional attributes distinguishes which of them have the same type of property, while differentiating
objects that are usually considered similar but differ in terms of their functional properties(not all trees
afford climbing). Hence, this taxonomy distinguishes objects based on functional properties than form
(Heft, 1988).
Few studies have implemented the affordance theory to explore functional properties of the
physical environment for children. For instance, the results of the study of 143, 8 to 9 year old children in
Finland by Kytta (2002) revealed rural villages to have higher potentialities in affording social behavior
than city environments. Rural environments also revealed a high potentiality in providing children’s play
affordance. In another research by Kytta (2003), children were interviewed about their perceived
affordances, focusing on children’s memories, perceptions, and activities. The interview was concerned
about where the affordances were perceived, and to what extent children utilized them.
Sandseter (2009) conducted a qualitative research through observation and interview on risky
play affordance of two type of Norwegian preschool playground (natural and traditional) based on
Gibson’s theory of affordance. The results indicated natural playgrounds to afford higher risky play
opportunities, compared to the traditional settings. In another research conducted by Cosco’s (2006),
three childcare centers with diverse outdoor play environments were compared in terms of the physical
activity affordance. The results from a sample size of 90 preschool children suggested diverse play areas,
and natural elements to be more stimulating for children’s physical activity.
These examples points out how the concept of affordance can be applied to recognize functional
properties of the physical environment. However, to date no research has systematically identified specific
environmental attributes affording cognitive play behaviors for preschool children. Complementing existing
environment-behavior research, this study will focus on how the physical environment attributes of
preschool outdoor settings composed of natural loose, natural fixed, manufactured fixed, toys and cycling
elements can afford various cognitive play behaviors for young children. The following section will briefly
define cognitive pay behavior and how it can be coded through observation.
2.2
Cognitive Play Behavior
Play provides opportunities for developing cognitive skills. Studies have shown that children can
learn “vocabulary, language skills, concepts, problem solving, perspective taking, representational skills,
memory, and creativity” through directed or free play (Zigler and Bishop-Josef, 2006, p.22). Cognitive play
is associated with a child’s a cognitive approach and ability to interact with the environment (Schaefer,
Gitlin, and Sandgrund, 1991). The importance of recognizing afforded cognitive play behaviors within the
environment can be interpreted through the implied interrelation of children’s cognitive development
traced through play (Belsky and Most, 1981; Cornett, 1998; Farmer-Dougan and Kazuba, 1999; Malone,
Stoneman, and Langone, 1994). Research indicates that poor cognitive development in children does not
result from genetic but lack of learning experiences (Feuerstein, 1979), accentuating the significance of
providing adequate learning opportunities for children in their associated spaces. Nevertheless, most of
what is known about cognitive development is unexpected and without a scientific qualification (Flavell,
1992).
Design interventions can supplement educational procedures to contribute children with academic
and learning difficulties, or disorders to learn effectively (Cornett, 1998). To extend knowledge about
cognitive play behavior in relation to learning environments, the current study is intended to explore how
children’s interaction with the physical attributes of the outdoor learning environments can associate with
children’s cognitive play behavior. Through identification of special attributes of the environment
stimulating cognitive play behavior, preschool outdoor environments can be designed to enhance
children’s exploration, discovery, problem solving, and interaction with the environment, and subsequently
cognitive development.
One of the major sources of knowledge is based on Piaget (1962). Based on observation he
classified play behaviors into three successive stages: practice play, symbolic, and game with rules.
Following that, Smilansky (1968) clarified Piaget’s categories and labeled them as: functional,
constructive, dramatic, and game with rules. More recently, Rubin (2001) has enhanced this scale through
incorporating the exploratory play behavior. This study will employ Rubin’s cognitive play behavior
hierarchy described as:
a) Functional play- Simple repetition of muscle movement, with or without objects. Functional
play is concerned with repeated actions that are not always associated with other objects (Reifel and
Yeatman, 1993).
b) Constructive play- Constructive play is where the child links previous knowledge of functional
play to manipulate objects towards a direct goal, which can be construction or creation (Cornett, 1998;
Rubin, 2001).
c) Explorative play- Exploration can involve the whole body movement supporting children’s
physical, social, and cognitive development (Pellegrini, Horvat, and Huberty, 1998). Exploratory play is an
indication of the current level of cognitive functioning, and environmental learning, correlating with
cognitive development (Belsky and Most, 1981).
d) Dramatic play – When meaning in play is detached from particular immediate representation
of objects, persons, and circumstances constructive play evolves to a de-contextualized development
termed as imaginative play (Belsky and Most, 1981). Dramatic play is the discovery of new situation and
characters through implementation of language, concepts, symbols, gesticulations, and emotions (Wardle,
2000) to represent objects or words (Cornett, 1998).
e) Games – with – rules- Games-with-rules is the final stage of development in which specific
rules with associated meanings involve the play behavior (Reifel and Yeatman, 1993). The development
of practice and symbolic play are necessary for the learning and development of children reflected in the
acquisition of the game with rules stage (Rubin, 2001).
f) No Play- coded during on looking, transitional, conversation, or unoccupied play behavior.
Several studies have applied this hierarchy to study children’s cognitive play behaviors within
outdoor environments. For instance, Campbell and Frost (1985) observed 45 second-grade children’s
cognitive play behaviors in traditional and creative playgrounds. The results indicated game with rules,
and then constructive play to be afforded the least type of behavior in both playgrounds. In addition, the
traditional playground afforded the most game with rules opportunities. Similarly, Henniger (1985)
employed Smilansky’s cognitive play categories to compare three-to-five year old children’s outdoor and
indoor play. The results suggested equipped and stimulating outdoor environments to have certain
advantages in supporting specific types of play. Pack and Michael (1995) also compared the cognitive
play behavior of 30 five-year-old children within outdoor and indoor environments through Rubin’s
categories. The results displayed children’s tendency to engage in functional play within outdoors more
than indoors. The researchers assumed this result to be associated with the available play structures such
as slides, climbing structures, etc. additionally excessive motor activities were not acceptable from teacher
due to safety.
Although such studies have been conducted to explore children’s cognitive play behaviors, there
is a requirement to study the functional constituents within outdoor learning environments that afford
cognitive play behaviors. Based on a design perspective, it is necessary to understand what type of
elements can afford which type of cognitive play behaviors, and which elements have more potentialities
in affording these behaviors. In this way, children’s abilities can be amplified through interacting with these
elements in play environments. Cosco (2006) has categorized children’s interaction with elements as: a)
Fixed: such as pole, platform, trellis, bench, manufactured play structure; b) Natural – fixed: such as
shrubs, trees, large rocks; c) Natural-loose: for instance flowers, sand, dirt, leaves; d) Toys: such as truck
toys, dolls, shovels; e) Wheel: such as tricycle, cart, scooter. This study will focus in detail the extent
natural loose, natural fixed, manufactured loose, toys, and wheel elements can afford different types of
cognitive play behaviors.
3
METHOD
The purpose of this study was to determine the cognitive play behavior affordances of various
elements in outdoor preschool settings. To address this purpose, the study pursued one main question:
How do elements within a diverse outdoor environment afford different type of cognitive play behavior?
The results of this study will provide an insight towards the type of cognitive play behaviors afforded in
particular environments by certain elements. Through this understanding, we can enhance the
opportunities for various cognitive play behaviors through the application of predefined elements.
For this study, two preschool settings were purposefully selected. The reason for this selection
was due to the complexity and variety of elements existing in the associated settings, contributing to
understanding the difference between elements. The playgrounds of these preschool settings have been
designed by “Natural Learning Initiative” team to function as an “Outdoor learning environment.” Center 1
referred to as Bright Horizon’s SAS preschool, is located in Cary, NC. The playground was composed of
various play settings, although based on school policy different age groups play in a certain area. The
focused setting for this study was composed of plenty of climbing or fruit trees; bushes; pergola; wooden
platform; movable boxes; graded garden plot; bicycle track around the grass and a storage area for
bicycles. Center 2, called “First Environments” preschool, is located at Durham, NC. This site was also
combined of various settings and elements. The areas under study included trees, hill, two sand-play
areas, a combined manufactured play equipment, swings, a gazebo, a music wall, many toys, bicycles,
and scooters. The environments consisted of grassed, dirt, or paced circulation surfaces.
Data were collected from 62, 4-to-5 year olds during recess, using the behavior mapping
technique. Through this technique, the unit of analysis is not the individual children, but the actualized
affordances provided by the elements (Cosco, Moore, and Islam, 2010). Prior the data collection, the
research methods, and parental consent forms were reviewed and approved by Institutional Review Board
(IRB). Parental consent forms were printed and given to each child, and simultaneously emailed to all four
to five year old children’s parents. The consent forms allowed the researcher to observe and occasionally
capture photos from children.
Each center was observed twice, with observation sessions conducted during morning outdoor
playtime (center 1 session = 50 min, center 2= 60 min). The outdoor play environments were divided into
particular observational zones, with a specified location in each zone to stand and observe. The
procedure included a 15-second for observing, and 20 second for recording each child’s behavior.
The observation procedure consisted of a systematic circulation of the observer through the
playgrounds based on pre-defined zones. The observer coded for each observed child’s cognitive play
behaviors, gender, and the type of interacting elements during play (such as pole, tree, bike, etc.). For this
paper the calculations regarding gender was not taken into consideration.
Each observational data point was later recorded in Geographical Information System (GIS)
program. The data was then exported into SPSS program and analyzed for descriptive and crosstab
statistic. Additionally, the type of elements were further congregated into manufactured fixed, natural
loose, natural fixed, toys, and cycling devices (Table 1). Descriptive analysis allowed comparison of
elements in relation to their afforded cognitive play behaviors. Observed cognitive play behaviors were
considered as dependent variables, while the types of elements were recognized as independent
variables. Correlational analysis was conducted to examine the association between the type of elements
and afforded cognitive play behaviors. In some instances, chi square analysis could not be employed due
to low cell values.
Table 1. Examples of Grouping Elements into Categories
Manufactured-Fixed
Natural Fixed
Natural Loose
Examples of
Play structure, green
Tree, bush,
Stone, dirt,
Elements
tube, swings, gazebo,
boulder, tree
sand, leaves,
climbing structure
trunk
stick, creatures
4
Toys
Shovel,
bucket,
dolls, rope
Cycling
Scooter,
bike
RESULTS
Through behavior mapping observation 471 data points were collected (SAS=234, and
FEELC=237). Figure 1 presents the resulting GIS maps illustrating the distribution of these data points in
relation to the site attributes.
Figure 1. Behavior Mapping Results of FEELC and SAS
In general, 33 types of elements were recorded during children’s play. Initially, elements were
compared in terms of their cognitive play behavior affordances. Compared to other elements, children
were highly observed during functional play within the pathways. The results indicated play boxes,
pathway, bikes, tree, grass or dirt, and woodchip surfaces to significantly afford higher functional play
opportunities, compared to other elements (p<0.01, df=33). Sand had the highest capability to afford
constructive play (p<0.01, df=33). Compared to other elements, adjustable pipes afforded a recognizable
number of constructive and exploratory plays. Dirt and grass, sticks, and toys were the most potential
Afforded Cognitive Play Behaviors
elements in affording imaginative play. Finally, grass or soil, play structure, and platforms were the most
potential elements in affording game with rules play behavior. In general, grass or soil, pathway, and sand
significantly afforded more cognitive play behavior interactions compared to other elements. In addition,
manufactured fixed structures were coded for functional, imaginative, game with rules, and no-play play
behaviors (p>0.05, df=6).
To examine the relationships between the type of elements and cognitive play behaviors with a
more generalized approach, the elements were classified into natural loose, natural fixed, manufactured
loose, manufactured fixed categories (Figure 2). Table 2 compares different category of elements in terms
of their cognitive play behavior affordances. Table 3 displays the percentage each category of elements
afforded a type of cognitive play behavior. Chi square analysis was not conducted to compare these
results as some cell values were lower than five.
1
59
0 6
0
14
Manu_Fixed
Imaginative
16
4
4
15
8
14
0
0
10
Nat-Loose
Exploring
0
47
0
Constructive
Nat-Fixed
Toy
Cycle
40
18 0
29
91
Functional
None
0%
Frequency of Observed Interaction with the Elements
Figure 2. Results comparing different type of elements in terms of cognitive play behavior
affordances.Diagram by authors
Table 2. Percentage of Afforded Cognitive Play Behaviors within Cognitive Play Behaviors.
Functional Constructive Exploring Imaginative Game.W.R None
Manu_Fixed
20.8
0.0
11.1
30.2
39.6
Nat-Fixed
9.4
0.0
22.2
7.5
0.0
Nat-Loose
0.0
85.5
38.9
28.3
12.5
Toy
7.3
14.5
0.0
34.0
18.8
Cycle
15.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
None
47.4
0.0
27.8
0.0
29.2
Sum
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Table 3. Percentage of Afforded Cognitive Play Behaviors within Category of Elements.
Functional
Constructive Exploring Imaginative Game.W.R None
Manu_Fixed
39.2
0.0
3.9
15.7
18.6
22.5
Nat-Fixed
58.1
0.0
25.8
12.9
0.0
3.2
Nat-Loose
0.0
56.6
16.9
18.1
7.2
1.2
Toy
24.6
14.0
0.0
31.6
15.8
14.0
Cycle
96.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.3
None
52.3
0.0
5.7
0.0
8.0
33.9
Sum
100
100
100
100
100
100
24.7
1.1
1.1
8.6
1.1
63.4
100.0
As displayed in Table 2, functional play was mostly afforded when children were interacting with
manufactured fixed, or no elements. The results suggested the presence of natural loose elements to be
highly associated with children’s constructive play. Imaginative play was highly observed when children
were interacting with manufactured fixed and toys. Considering hard surfaced pathways as manufactured
fixed elements, the results indicated game with rules to be mostly observed when interacting with these
elements.
Table 3 implies manufactured fixed, natural fixed, toys, cycling devices, and interaction without
any elements to be mostly potential in affording functional play compared to other types of cognitive play
behaviors. In addition, natural loose elements appeared to be mostly applied for constructive play. In
addition, descriptive statistics imply toys to be highly affording imaginative play. The results point out
functional play to be afforded the most (40.3%), and exploratory play the least (7.5%) type of cognitive
play behaviors (p<0.001, df=5).
5
DISCUSSION
To date, some studies have compared the relationship between children’s cognitive play behavior
and different type of play environments (Henniger, 1985; Hart and Sheehan, 1986; Pack and Michael,
1995; Sanders and Harper, 1976, etc.). On the other hand, some researchers have applied the concept of
affordance to explore how outdoor environments can afford physical activity levels (Fjortoft and Sageie,
2000; Cosco, 2006), socialization (Clark and Uzzell, 2002), self-regulation (Korpela, Kytta, and Hartig,
2002), or independent mobility (Kytta, 2004). However, additional research is required to configure how
specific elements incorporated in outdoor learning environments can afford different types of cognitive
play behaviors. This research attempted to extend knowledge in terms of understanding the afforded
cognitive play behaviors supported by various elements within outdoor learning environments for young
children. Due to time and budget limitations, the observation sessions in this study were limited,
suggesting future studies to strengthen the results through comparing multiple sites and conducting
adequate observation sessions. Furthermore, it has to be into consideration that this research was
conducted in only two early childhood settings and in a period of time, with specific children. Hence,
different children or contexts may report non-equivalent results (Einarsdottir, 2005).
The results of this study are consistent with previous research suggesting defined pathways to
have considerable functional play behavior affordance for young children (Moore, 1986; Cosco, Moore
and Islam, 2010; Striniste and Moore, 1989). This potentiality may be a consequence of their flat and
relatively smooth surface (Cosco, 2006; Cosco et al., 2010; Heft, 1988; Kytta, 2002) which afforded
tricycle riding, running, etc. Additionally, as suggested by previous research (Cosco, 2006; Cosco et al.,
2010), the curved pattern of the pathways may have contributed to children’s attraction into engaging in
functional play behaviors. However, supporting previous research (Cosco et al., 2010) the results
displayed a decreased level of functional play behavior on soft surfaces such as sand, woodchips, or soil
compared to hard asphalt coverings. It can be assumed this quality is partially related to the fall
observance, softness, and malleability dirt and sand possess, stimulating a sense of safety (Moore and
Wong, 1997; Striniste and Moore, 1989).
Contradictory with previous findings (Campbell and Frost, 1985; Fjortoft and Sageie, 2000) which
imply manufactured fixed elements to afford the least cognitive play behavior affordances, the results
displayed these fixed structures to afford different types of cognitive play behaviors (functional,
imaginative, game with rules, and exploratory). This can be explained by pointing out that the play
structures in these two preschool settings were composed of different complex and engaging elements,
affording gathering, exploring, climbing, pulling, hiding, or movement opportunities. This is in accordance
with the results of the study by Moore (1985) and Monore (1985) suggesting children’s preference for
compound play structures than isolated items. However, future research on different types of play
structures and cognitive play affordances can contribute to the accuracy of this finding. Additionally, the
results confirm previous studies (Frost and Klein, 1983; Moore, 1985; Wolley and Lowe, 2011) that
manufactured fixed equipment mainly develop children’s functional play behaviors.
The observational findings from this study accentuate how combining manufactured fixed
elements with natural settings and elements (water, sand, etc.) can enrich play setting, affording various
developmental opportunities for children. Confirming previous research (Bixler, Floyd, and Hammut, 2002;
Fjortoft and Sageie, 2000; Lester and Maudsley, 2007), natural settings enabled children to engage in
constructive, exploratory, and imaginative play behaviors. Supporting Moore and Wong’s (1997) research,
the findings of this study points out how vegetations, trees afford functional, imaginative, exploratory play
behavior (hiding, holding, climbing, etc.). The results also supported Moore (1986) and Sandseter’s (2009)
results on how trees and vegetation can afford climbing, hiding, exploration, and fantasy play. As
suggested by designers (Hart, 1979; Marcus, 1998), the existence of climbable fruit trees and bushes in
playground settings stimulated functional and exploratory play behavior through stimulating children’s
sense of curiosity. The climbable trees provided lookout opportunities, while adding to the variety,
challenge, and complexity of the play setting.
Educational settings can be more appealing through the application of manipulative components
or loose parts (Moore and Cosco, 2010). In fact, comfortable and less stressful environments possess
elements that are soft or stimulate touch like sand, dirt, or water, called “loose parts” (Weinstein, 1987).
Manipulative environments allow children to change, and engage in problem solving, while developing
their imagination abilities (Johnson and Hurley, 2002). While this opportunity is not afforded in most built
environments, research indicates that play environments that contain high amount of loose parts stimulate
cognitive, social-cognitive and cognitive – motor play (Moore, 1985). Previous studies by NLI (2007) have
reported how adding loose element such as toys can enhance children’s dramatic play and interaction. In
support of prior findings, the results implied loose element such as sticks, toys, or dirt to be mostly
potential in affording imaginary play. Loose elements provided opportunities for alteration, interaction and
understanding their environment, developing imaginative and creative play (Woolley and Lowe, 2011).
Natural settings provided a variety of “loose parts” that enabled children to shape their
environment, developing their creative and constructional cognitive abilities (Fjortoft and Sageie, 2000;
Moore, 1985; Moore, 2003; Moore and Wong, 1997; Weinstein, 1987). Confirming the findings of Woolley
and Lowe (2011), loose parts had the highest constructive and imaginarily play affordance and helped
children to create imaginative spaces, elements and stories (Moore and Wong, 1997). For instance, the
findings accentuate sand’s manipulative quality to enhance children’s opportunities to shape, pour, mold,
move, and dig this element. Consistent with Moore and Wong’s (1997) finding sand noticeably afforded
constructive and exploratory, and imaginative play. The results confirmed previous findings (Moore and
Wong, 1997; Weinstein, 1987) that manipulative and less structured materials, such as sand, boxes, and
pipes can afford greater variety of imaginative and games with rules play behavior. Interestingly, game
with rules was mostly afforded by manufactured fixed, and toy elements.
Research indicates six to seven year-old children to be more engaged in game with rules behavior
(Pack and Michael, 1995; Rubin, Fein, and Vandenberg, 1983). Consistent with previous literature
(Campbell and Frost, 1985; Pack and Michael, 1995), game with rules play behavior was one of the least
afforded cognitive play behaviors. Recognized as manufactured fixed elements, the results suggested
platforms, dirt surfaces, and play structure to have a high potentiality for this behavior. Platforms have
been previously recognized as multi-purpose game settings, which provide opportunities for look out
(Moore, 1989; Moore and Wong, 1997). Based on the observational results, these platforms offered flat,
smooth surfaces that children gathered, compromised, and developed rules. In some instances, the
platforms were combined in their games as a target point. In addition, the complexity of the play structure
may have stimulated games in children. Children were observed, hiding, chasing, and developing selfinitiated games, while interacting with the play structure. They also enjoyed running and chasing friends
over the open grass or dirt surface. In support of Ozdemir and Corakci’s (2010) findings, the results
suggest the requisite of adequate open spaces to stimulate game with rules.
Interestingly, children were observed interacting with no elements during many functional play
behaviors. This stimulation may be associated with the environmental characteristics that promote
children’s activities. As Cosco (2006) suggests, the variety, complexity, and responsiveness of the
physical environment can promote children’s physical activity levels. While functional play is essential for
children’s health and was the most afforded play behavior in the environment, children require stimulation
to engage in higher levels of cognitive play, such as game with rules, which are not adequately provided
by the outdoor learning environments. Further research is required to understand elements, contexts, and
conditions that promote this type of play.
6
CONCLUSION
Children will learn and play more effectively in engaging places that can be created through
landscape architecture. Through the application of natural elements, outdoor preschool environments can
be designed in such ways that stimulate children’s sense of exploration, wonder, and imagination.
Nonetheless, despite the current attention for combining natural elements within children’s daily outdoor
experience, the potentiality of these elements in affording cognitive play behaviors within educational
settings is less acknowledged.
The data from this study contribute to a growing body of environmental behavior research that
attempts to explain the significance of incorporating natural elements within outdoor learning
environments to increase children’s opportunities for development. In general, elements such as fruit
trees, compound play structures, sand, dirt, vegetation, grass, and trees offered considerable cognitive
play behavior affordances. The results indicated how the flexible and complex quality of natural elements
provided a variety of cognitive play behavior affordances that was more engaging for children than
manufactured fixed elements. Natural fixed elements offered chances for exploratory and functional play
behavior, while affording natural props for children’s constructive, imaginative, fantasy play. Future
research with different contexts and multiple observations is required to address how various outdoor
learning environments with different design characteristics and elements afford cognitive play behavior.
Further longitudinal research will also be beneficial to explore if daily interaction with natural elements can
directly support children’s cognitive development.
7
REFERENCES
Belsky, J., & Most, R. K. (1981). From exploration to play: A cross-sectional study of infant free play
behavior. Developmental Psychology, 17 (5), 630-39.
Bixler, R. D., Floyd, M. E., & Hammutt, W. E. (2002). Environmental socialization: Qualitative tests of the
childhood play hypothesis. Environment and Behavior, 34 (6), 795-818.
Chia, J. (1985). Play and social development in Taiwan. In When Children Play: Proceeding of the
International Conference on Play and Play Environments (1983: University of Texas at Austin),
edited by J. L. & Sunderlin Frost, S., 61 - 65. Wheaton, MD: Association for Childhood Education
International.
Clark, C., & Uzzell, D. L. (2002). The affordances of the home, neighbourhood, school and town centre
for adolescents. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22 (1-2), 95-108.
Cornett, J. Y. (1998). An investigation of the reliability and validity of two transdisciplinary play-based
assessment methods: The open-ended and objective-based observation coding procedures.
Illinois State University.
Cosco, N., Moore, R., Thigpen, B., Verzaro-O'Brien, M., & Mendel, C. (2005). Head start growth and
readiness in the outdoor world: Linking research to practive. Briefing Paper. Washington, D.C.:
Head Start Bureau.
Cosco, N. G. (2006). Motivation to move: Physical activity affordances in preschool play areas
[Dissertation]. Edinburg College of Art (Scotland): School of Landscape Architecture, Heriot Watt
University.
Cosco, N. G., Moore, R. C., & Islam, M. Z. (2010). Behavior mapping: A method for linking preschool
physical activity and outdoor design. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 42 (3), 513.
Farmer-Dougan, V., & Kaszuba, T. (1999). Reliability and validity of play-based observations:
Relationship between the play behaviour observation system and standardised measures of
cognitive and social skills. Educational Psychology, 19 (4), 429-440.
Feuerstein, R. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential
assessment device, theory, instruments and techniques. Baltimore: University Park Press.
Fjørtoft, I., & Sageie, J. (2000). The natural environment as a playground for children: Landscape
description and analyses of a natural playscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 48 (1-2), 83-97.
Flavell, J. H. (1982). Cognitive development: Past, present, and future. Developmental Psychology, 28
(6), 998.
Francis, C. (1998). People places: Design guidelines for urban open space. edited by C.C. Marcus and C.
Francis. New York: Wiley, 1998.
Freuder, T. G. (2006). Designing for the future: Promoting ecoliteracy in the design of children's outdoor
play environments. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2006.
Frost, J. L., & Campbell, S. D. (1985). Equipment choices of primary - age children on conventional and
creative playgrounds. In When Children Play: Proceeding of the International Conference on Play
and Play Environments (1983: University of Texas at Austin), edited by J. L. & Sunderlin Frost,
S., 89 - 92. Wheaton, MD: Association for Childhood Education International.
Frost, J. L., & Klein, B.L. (1983). Children's play and playgrounds. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach tovisual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Hart, C. H., & Sheehan, R. (1986). Preschoolers’ play behavior in outdoor environments: Effects of
traditional and contemporary playgrounds. American educational research journal, 23 (4), 668.
Hart, R. (1979). Children's experience of place. New York: Irvington.
Heft, H. (1988). Affordances of children’s environments: A functional approach to environmental
description. Children’s Environments Quarterly, 5 (3), 29-37.
Henniger, M. L. (1985). Preschool children’s play behaviors in indoor and outdoor environments. In When
Children Play: Proceeding of the International Conference on Play and Play Environments (1983:
University of Texas at Austin), edited by J. L. & Sunderlin Frost, S., 145 - 49. Wheaton, MD:
Association for Childhood Education International.
Johnson, J. M., & Hurley, J. (2002). A future ecology of urban parks: Reconnecting nature and community
in the landscape of children. Landscape Journal, 21 (1), 110.
Kahn, P. H., & Kellert, S. R. (2002). Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary
investigations: The MIT Press.
Kellert, S. R. (2002). Experiencing nature: Affective, cognitive, and evaluative development, in children
and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Korpela, K., Kyttä, M., & Hartig, T. (2002). Restorative experience, self-regulation, and children's place
preferences. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 22 (4), 387-98.
Kyttä, M. (2002). Affordances of children's environments in the context of cities, small towns, suburbs and
rural villages in Finland and Belarus. Journal of environmental psychology, 22 (1-2), 109-23.
Kyttä, M. (2003). Children in outdoor contexts. Affordances and independent mobility in the assessment
of environmental child friendliness. Helsinki University of Technology.
Lester, S., & Maudsley, M. (2007). Play, naturally: A review of children's natural play. London: National
Children’s Bureau.
Louv, R. (2005). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature- deficit disorder. Chapell Hill,
Nc.: Algonquin Books.
Maller, C., Townsend, M., Brown, P., & St Leger, L. (2002). Healthy parks healthy people: The health
benefits of contact with nature in a park context. Burwood (Australia): Faculty of Health and
Behavioural Sciences, Deakin University.
Malone, D. M., Stoneman, Z., & Langone, J. (1994). Contextual variation of correspondences among
measures of play and developmental level of preschool children. Journal of Early Intervention, 18
(2), 199-215.
Marcus, C. C. (1998). People places: Design guidelines for urban open space. Edited by C.C. Marcus
and C. Francis. New York: Wiley.
Monore, M. L. (1985). An evaluation of day care playgrounds in Texas. In When Children Play:
Proceeding of the International Conference on Play and Play Environments (1983: University of
Texas at Austin), edited by J. L. & Sunderlin Frost, S., 193 - 99. Wheaton, MD: Association for
Childhood Education International.
Moore, G. T. (1985). State of art in play environment. In When Children Play: Proceeding of the
International Conference on Play and Play Environments (1983: University of Texas at Austin),
edited by J. L. & Sunderlin Frost, S., 171 – 92. Wheaton, MD: Association for Childhood
Education International.
Moore, R. C. (2003). How cities use parks to help children learn. Chicago, IL: American Planning
Association.
Moore, R. C., & Wong, H. (1997). Natural learning: The life history of an environmental schoolyard:
Creating environments for rediscovering nature's way of teaching. Berkeley, Calif: MIG
Communications.
Moore, R. C., & Cosco, N. G. (2010). Using behaviour mapping to investigate healthy outdoor
environments for children and families: Conceptual framework, procedures and applications. In
Innovative Approaches to Researching Landscape and Health, edited by C. W. Thompson, P.
Aspinall and S. Bell, 33 - 72: Taylor and Francis Group.
Moore, R. C. (1986). Childhood's domain: Play and place in child development. London: British Library
Cataloguing in Publication Data.
Natural, Learning, Initiative. (2007). My place by the bay: Prepared environments for early
science learning. Raleigh, NC: NCSU.
Özdemir, A., & Çorakçi, M. (2010). Participation in the greening of schoolyards in the Ankara
public school system. Scientific Research and Essays, 5 (15), 2065-77.
Pack, A. R., & Michael, W.B. (1995). A comparison of two methods of data collection in analyzing
social and cognitive play behavior.
Pellegrini, A., Horvat, M., & Huberty, P. (1998). The relative cost of children's physical play.
Animal Behavior, 55 (4), 1053 - 61.
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and lmitation in childhood. New York: Norton.
Reifel, S., & Yeatman, J. (1993). From category to context: Reconsidering classroom play.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8 (3), 347-67.
Rivkin, M. S. (1990). The great outdoors: Restoring children's rights to play outside. Washington,
DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Rubin, K. H. (2001). The play observation scale (Pos). Center for Children, Relationships, and
Culture: University of Maryland.
Rubin, K. H., Fein, C. G., & Vandenberg, B. (1983). Play. In Handbook of Child Psychology:
Socialization, Personality, and Social Development, edited by E.M. Hetherington, 693-774. New
York: Wiley.
Sanders, K. M., & Harper, L. V. (1976). Free-play fantasy behavior in preschool children:
Relations among gender, age, season, and location. Child development, 1182-85.
Sandseter, E. B. H. (2009). Affordances for risky play in preschool: The importance of features in the
play environment. Early childhood education journal, 36 (5), 439-46.
Schaefer, C. E., Gitlin, K., & Sandgrund, A. (1991). Play diagnosis and assessment. New York: Wiley.
Smilansky, S. (1968). The effects of sociodramatic play on disadvantaged preschool children. New
York:
Wiley.
Striniste, N. A., & Moore, R. C. (1989). Early childhood outdoors: A literature review related to the
design of childcare environments. Children’s Environments Quarterly, 6 (4), 25-31.
Van den Berg, A.E., Hartig, T., & Staats, H. (2007). Preference for nature in urbanized societies:
Stress, restoration, and the pursuit of sustainability. Journal of Social Issues, 63 (1), 79-96.
Wardle, F. (2000). Supporting constructive play in the wild. Child Care Information Exchange, 5, 26-29.
Weinstein, C. S. (1987). Designing preschool classrooms to support development – Research
and reflection. In Spaces for Children : The Built Environment and Child Development,
edited by C.S. Weinstein and T.G. David, 159. New York: Plenum Press.
Woolley, H., & Lowe, A. (2012). Exploring the relationship between design approach and
play value of outdoor play spaces.
Zigler, E. F., & Bishop Josef, S.J. (2006). The cognitive child versus the whole child: Lessons
from 40 years of head start. In Play = Learning: How Play Motivates and Enhances
Children's Cognitive and Social Emotional Growth, edited by D.G. Singer, Golinkoff, R.
M., & Hirsh - Paek, K., 15 - 35. New York: Oxford University Press.