EARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT, 22(5), 757–777

Copyright # 2011 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1040-9289 print=1556-6935 online
DOI: 10.1080/10409289.2011.596460

Young Children and Educators

Engagement and Learning Outdoors: A
Basis for Rights-Based Programming
Natasha Blanchet-Cohen
Department of Applied Human Sciences, Concordia University

Enid Elliot
School of Child and Youth Care, University of Victoria

Research Findings: This article reports on a study undertaken with 4 early

childhood programs in a medium-size city in Canada investigating young
children’s and educators’ perspectives on engagement and learning possibilities
outdoors. A rights-based methodology including participant observations and
interactive activities with children as well as focus groups and discussion
groups with educators reveals the diversity and richness of young children’s
learning opportunities in the natural outdoor space. Educators also talk about
forming more egalitarian and fulfilling relationships with children in outdoor
activities. The value educators placed on play in natural spaces led to the cre-
ation of opportunities for play outside and motivated educators to support
children’s interactions outdoors by mediating policy and societal fear of the
risk of outdoor play. Practice or Policy: The results of the study highlight
the value of a learning community for early childhood educators so that they
might support children’s full use of outdoor space and the critical role of adult
allies in advocating for rights-based programming.

‘‘I love to run downhill!’’ a 4-year-old boy told us as he walked us through

the outdoor grounds of his early childhood program. In running down the
hill, this boy is connecting to his local landscape, entering into a relationship

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Enid Elliot, School of Child
and Youth Care, University of Victoria, P.O. Box 1700, STN CSC, Victoria, British Columbia,
Canada V8W 2Y2. E-mail: [email protected]

757
758 BLANCHET-COHEN AND ELLIOT

with and making sense of his particular place. The sheer joy of running with
the ground beneath his feet, experiencing the pull of gravity, feeling the wind
in his hair, and smelling the air is fulfilling, embedding memories of sensa-
tions unique to that place. Listening to this boy, we wondered, how do early
childhood programs support (or not) young children’s connection to the
outdoor environment, their local landscape? The evidence is mounting that
children are spending less time outside and more sedentary time with tele-
vision and electronic games. This lack of opportunity to move freely outside
and connect with the natural world and its materials may contribute to
problems such as childhood obesity (Temple, Naylor, Rhodes, & Wharf-
Higgins, 2009) and a lack of environmental awareness.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)
states that all programs should recognize and respect children’s perspectives,
including those of young children, and that adults, as duty-bearers, have a
responsibility to support children’s rights, including the right of partici-
pation and the right to a holistic education that respects the natural environ-
ment (see Lansdown, 2005; Lundy & McEvoy, 2009; United Nations, 2005).
With more children under 5 spending the majority of their days in early
childhood programs and away from parents, understanding the educator’s
role in engaging with children outside in natural settings deserves attention
(Moore & Marcus, 2008; Statistics Canada, 2006).
This article reports on a study undertaken in a medium-size city in
Canada with four early childhood programs, where educators valued chil-
dren’s connections to the outdoors and wanted to increase the opportunities
for explorations in natural outdoor settings by following the children’s inter-
ests and concerns. A rights-based methodology was used during the 1-year
research study that combined interactive activities and participant obser-
vation with children as well as focus groups and idea-sharing discussions
with educators. The findings point to children’s enthusiasm for the outdoors
and educators’ role in nurturing children’s relationship to the natural out-
door landscape and in mediating with licensing authorities responsible for
regulations. The study raises the issue of aligning knowledge, policy, and
practice on the outdoor spaces of early childhood centers with the perspec-
tives of two key social actors: young children and early childhood educators.

GAP BETWEEN KNOWLEDGE, POLICY, AND PRACTICE

To set the context for this study, this section reviews research that demon-
strates the multiple benefits of the natural environment for young children;
despite evidence of the benefits of play outdoors in a natural setting,
most of the focus of early childhood educational training is on the inside
 ENGAGEMENT AND LEARNING OUTDOORS 759

environment. We then present how a rights-based methodology can help

address the current gap between knowledge and policy by listening to young
children as well as involving educators.

The Multiple Benefits of Outdoor Play for Young Children

Overall, research shows that people with access to natural spaces have a
greater sense of satisfaction with their lives. A review of the literature by
Rohde and Kendle (1994) indicates that both viewing nature and being in
nature have beneficial psychological effects—feelings of pleasure and dimin-
ishment of negative feelings. The merits of the outdoors apply equally to
young children, with the natural play environment providing a variety of
opportunities for development. Studies of different outside play spaces
found that a mixture of manufactured materials and natural materials made
children more active (Cosco, 2006). Outside, children can run, be noisy, and
jump, which is often not allowed inside. While providing exercise and
enhancing children’s fitness levels, noisy rough-and-tumble play also offers
opportunities to vary social relationships by interacting with peers in ways
that contribute to children’s social skills (Tannock, 2008).
It is significant that nature provides unlimited opportunities for learning
that are compatible with children’s interests and skills (Lester & Maudsley,
2007). Herrington and Studtmann (1998) found that although manufactured
equipment encouraged physical development, landscape-based play spaces
promoted learning in a range of areas—physical, social, intellectual, and
emotional. In other words, play and learning became more complex and
layered. Experiencing the effects of weather and seasons firsthand, finding
bugs under logs and rocks, or watching a creek dry up or ice over provides
children with direct knowledge. A natural setting also offers a chance to
restore the ability to focus and sustain attention (Berman, Jonides, &
Kaplan, 2008; Kuo & Faber, 2004). It is not coincidental therefore to find
that although manufactured equipment may meet rigorous safety standards,
children spend little time on playground equipment and more time around
and about the equipment (Herrington & Lesmeister, 2006). Young children
are agents as they select how and on what they play (Blanchet-Cohen, 2009).
Young children’s experiences outdoors are also important for providing
experiences that can contribute to the development of environmental
citizenship. By experiencing the connection to the natural world and
elements, children acquire an understanding of their relationship and
responsibility to the human and non-human communities (Orr, 1993). Inter-
viewing environmental activists about the impetus for their interest in the
environment, Chawla (1998, 2007) found that activists had early memories
of connecting to a place outdoors and to a particular adult who connected
760 BLANCHET-COHEN AND ELLIOT

them with the natural world. Cobb (1977) also noted the impact of time
spent outdoors during childhood on writers, intellectuals, and artists:
‘‘The child ‘knows’ or re-cognizes that he makes his own world and that
his body is a unique instrument, where the powers of nature and human
nature meet’’ (p. 89).
Despite the merits of young children’s connection to the environment,
playgrounds in early childhood centers are dominated by metal climbing
structures and covered in rubber matting, pea gravel, or bark chips with
concrete (Herrington & Lesmeister, 2006). Children are losing opportunities
for those experiences outside that, as suggested in Last Child in the Woods
(Louv, 2005), may have consequences for the health of the planet.

Lack of Environmental Education in Educators’ Training

Further supporting the importance of valuing the outdoor space in early
childhood centers is Article 29(e) of the UNCRC, which states that all edu-
cation should be directed to ‘‘the development of the child’s personality,
talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential’’ and to
‘‘the development of respect for the natural environment.’’ Early childhood
educators currently, however, receive little in their education about the
importance of unstructured outdoor play in a natural setting (Elliott,
2008) to a child’s development and learning. Environmental education in
early childhood has been largely ignored; few early childhood educators
value the outdoors as an opportunity for learning; many do not know
how to facilitate children’s curiosity and connection with the natural ele-
ments (Davis, 2009). Lack of knowledge means that educators may place lit-
tle value on the time spent outside or may not have resources to create
meaningful opportunities for children. Maynard and Waters’s (2007) study
in four schools in Wales showed that teachers were not fully aware of the
‘‘potential uses and benefits of outdoor environments’’ (p. 262), making
them conclude that educators are missing ‘‘many of the opportunities
afforded by the outdoor environment to enhance children’s learning’’
(p. 255). By acquiring language and concepts of the outdoors, children can
develop the ‘‘communicative competence required in the democratic process
of deciding what needs to be resisted, fundamentally changed or conserved
and intergenerationally renewed’’ (p. 232) . Helping children and educators
articulate their experiences outdoors can provide them with a way of think-
ing about and discussing their experiences outdoors and ultimately lead them
to protecting or enhancing the places they value and cherish.
As Davis (2009) stated, there is an ‘‘urgent’’ need to engage young
children and educators in environmental education. There already exists a
long tradition of promoting nature in early childhood education with, for
 ENGAGEMENT AND LEARNING OUTDOORS 761

example, Rousseau’s Emile (1979=1762); the McMillan sisters, who

established the Open Air Nursery in 1914; and Rudolf Steiner (Waldorf
schools), who wanted children to learn about the cycles of nature and
advocated the use of natural materials. This thread continues today in
Waldorf schools, the forest preschools of Norway and Denmark, but is less
evident in most early childhood education programs in North America.
Some of the first forest preschools have just been established in the past
few years in Canada and the United States.

A Rights-Based Methodology for Engaging Children and Educators

As a reference point for how to support the rights of young children, we refer
to General Comment No. 7 on early childhood (United Nations, 2005). This
states that all programs and professionals responsible for young children
should adhere to the principle of best interests, which involves the protection
of children’s rights and promotion of children’s growth and well-being
‘‘while taking into account their views and evolving capacities’’ (para. 13).
A rights-based lens, therefore, requires listening to young children and
actively inviting their perspectives. The involvement of children in the design
of services is a requirement of the UNCRC as well as a means of optimizing
children’s claims and enhancing their authority as stakeholders (Lundy &
McEvoy, 2009). This perspective, however, has not received due recognition
because of the prevalent view of young children as incompetent and unable to
actively participate in matters that affect their daily lives (Clark, 2010).
The present study was based on the principle that young children are
knowledgeable about their own experiences and their own lives and that lis-
tening to children will enlarge and enrich pedagogical practice. As supported
by a growing body of research, young children are shown to engage in
designing their spaces (Clark, 2007; United Nations, 2005). When asked
and listened to carefully, children as young as 18 months can share their
insights and understandings (Lansdown, 2005). Children can speak to what
matters to them in their particular space. Alison Clark (2007, 2010) has writ-
ten about children as collaborators and contributors to design processes.
Another implication of a rights-based lens considered for this study was
the need to involve the perspectives of educators as critical duty-bearers
responsible for breathing life into children’s rights. General Comment No.
7 (United Nations, 2005) states that State Parties have a responsibility

to promote the active involvement of parents, professionals and responsible

authorities in the creation of opportunities for young children to progressively
exercise their rights within their everyday activities in all relevant settings,
including by providing training in the necessary skills. . . . It also requires adults
762 BLANCHET-COHEN AND ELLIOT

to show patience and creativity by adapting their expectations to a young

child’s interests, levels of understanding and preferred ways of communicating.
(para. 14[c])

Adults therefore need to create opportunities as well as adopt appropriate

skills to engage young children. With the number of hours young children
spend in early childhood centers, the role of educators in making this a
reality is becoming increasingly important.
Applying a rights-based methodology in this study therefore involved
working with both young children and educators, a dual emphasis that
has often been overlooked in practice. We were interested in how young
children and educators actively engage outdoors.

METHODS

Multisite Case Study

This study emerged from an interest expressed by educators in four centers
who valued the time children spent in the outside space and were curious
about creating more natural environments and exploring alternatives to
the usual playground structures. As described here, the four centers served
different groups of young children, and each had initiated a process to
reflect on a redesign of its outdoor space.
One center was an infant=toddler program with 12 children younger than
3 years of age that served young mothers enrolled in an educational pro-
gram. The infant=toddler program was based in an alternative school in
which the children’s mothers were enrolled in high school. This center had
a large deck that looked onto a field with a couple of fruit trees. The staff
had decided that by opening the deck onto the field they could use the field
more often as an outside play space. This project provided the impetus to
plan an outside space for toddlers.
The First Nations early childhood program served children from birth
through school age. The outside area for the 3- to 5-year-olds had a climbing
structure that licensing had approved but, subsequently under new regula-
tions, wanted removed. They wanted to create a plan for the outside space.
This play space had a natural slope and a bank with a large rock set into it
and a lovely corner with bushes and trees. One of their goals was to have a
replica of a Big House (where cultural activities traditionally take place)
built for the outside area.
The university-based 3- to 4-year-old center had a large climber it wanted
removed. They had built gardens and took the children beyond the fence of
 ENGAGEMENT AND LEARNING OUTDOORS 763

their outside area to the nearby wooded areas. The children loved the ravine
and woods beyond the fence, and staff felt the children learned a great deal
as they moved over logs and through the trees and watched the water in the
creek come and go with the seasons. They were interested in creating a
richer, more engaging space outside their classroom.
The fourth program joined the study slightly later than the other three.
They had heard about the project and asked to join our group. A preschool
program that ran alongside a child care program, they spent almost half
their time outside whatever the weather. Backing onto a nature reserve, they
used the hill behind them for children to climb and explore. They were inter-
ested in sharing ideas and strategies for engaging children in the natural
world.
In this multisite case study educators shared a common interest in engag-
ing in discussions around how their outdoor spaces could better reflect chil-
dren’s interests, making them more accountable to children. The engagement
of these educators provided a unique context for carrying out research activi-
ties with children and educators.

Approach With Children

Several methods were used to engage young children and educators in shar-
ing their perspectives on the outdoors. As this was a participatory case study,
participants were engaged members of the research; both the children and
educators contributed to the research design and outcomes (Reilly, 2010).
To understand the children’s perspectives, we drew on the idea of a mosaic
approach, defined as a ‘‘multi-method strength-based framework’’ (p. 116)
that captures the strengths of young children by combining imagination
and sensitivity and using participant observation and other participatory
tools to engage the under-6-year-olds (Clark, 2010). In each center we had
a minimum of four observation sessions, with at least two of these sessions
videotaped. All observations took place in the morning during the spring
and summer.
We found, across the different programs, participant observation to be a
primary method of hearing from young children in unmediated ways. This
involved spending time carefully observing what children were doing, what
they gravitated to, and how they used the space and the elements available
to them and then asking questions about what they were doing, but only
when invited by the children. Seeing us take notes during the observations,
children often came to us and started talking, showing us around their play
area, sharing information and answering our questions. We found the infor-
mal setup made children eager and comfortable to talk at their own pace
about what they did outside.
764 BLANCHET-COHEN AND ELLIOT

One interactive activity used was showing the children videotapes as a

point of discussion of their outdoor play spaces. During the viewing, we
observed children’s reactions, heard their narratives in response to seeing
and hearing themselves on the tapes, and asked them if we had correctly
understood what they told us previously. Some children were more inter-
ested in sharing with us than others. Some were more interested in showing
us their outside area. In two centers, we brought photos of the outdoor
space and asked the children to discuss them, showing us what they liked
and did not like. The activity resulted in a lively discussion in the center
for the 3- to 4-year-olds but worked differently in the center for the tod-
dlers. In the infant=toddler center, an almost-3-year-old boy systematically
took each photo and went around the playground placing each one at its
corresponding location! An activity intended to begin a dialogue on
favorite=least favorite places proved to illustrate this boy’s familiarity with
his particular outside place. Another time, we brought in different materi-
als, such as sand or water or small people and replicas of swings or slides,
aimed at engaging young children in designing their ideal outdoor space.
Instead it was informative to see to which materials children were most
attracted.
Throughout the study, cultivating relationships with the children and
educators was important. This aspect was greatly facilitated by one of us
having community credibility, with years of experience as an early years
educator. Our decision to proceed with an ethic of care extended to how
we dealt with the consent form (Dahlberg & Moss, 2005; Elliot, 2007; Nod-
dings, 1984). Although a university-approved consent form had been sent
home to the parents=guardians requesting permission for their child’s
involvement in the study, we took the question of consent to the children
themselves. The first day we visited we explicitly explained the purpose of
the study to the children and asked their permission to tape and take photos,
and we emphasized that they could tell us any time not to take their photo.
We tried to remind them of this at times when we sensed reluctance during
the research. All of the children agreed to be part of the study. Taking time
and space for the children’s agreement signaled our intent to take their
active participation seriously. This meant staying aware of our own limited
understanding of their perspective as we conducted research with young
children.

Activities With Educators

After the observations and interactive activities with the young children, we
did focus groups with the educators, asking two or three from each center for
their views on play and learning outside. We asked about their experiences
 ENGAGEMENT AND LEARNING OUTDOORS 765

with the children outside, what they noticed, and how they felt outside, as
well as details about their own childhood experiences. We asked about
restrictions that they faced in their outdoor spaces. We asked what the chil-
dren did outside that was different from inside and for examples of what
they learned outside. Two of the educators kept journals of their observa-
tions and understandings of the children’s outdoor play that they shared
with us, and these texts furthered our insights.
An integral dimension of the research method was the creation at the
outset of a learning community among the educators (Elliot & Blanchet-
Cohen, 2009). As a group, we met to discuss our visions for the outside
spaces and shared ideas and stories of what we observed children doing
outside, and as researchers we spoke of how we might proceed in gathering
the perspectives of young children. We named ourselves the Natural Play
Space group and met a total of six times during the course of the study.
During the meetings we also introduced resource personnel—once inviting
a landscape architect to share ideas and photos with us on what has been
done elsewhere—and created opportunities for dialogue with other stake-
holders, for instance by inviting the licensing officials responsible for ensur-
ing that early childhood programs meet provincial standards.
To further the involvement of participants in the research analysis, the
themes and ideas developed during the slightly longer than 12-month period
were collated and discussed in a final meeting with educators to which we
also invited the licensing officials. A rich dialogue began on the issue of
safety in the outdoor environment. We agreed to continue our discussions
and inquiry to explore how children’s interests and enjoyment of being out-
side can be more fully supported by educators and society. These exchanges
contributed to the research findings and to their dissemination.

FINDINGS

Although each program had a different vision and perspective, we found

commonalities among the educators and the children of the four programs.
The first common theme was young children’s enjoyment of and deep
engagement in play outside, and related development and learning oppor-
tunities. The second related to the educators’ nurturing of opportunities
for outdoor play, and the skills entailed in valuing the outdoors. Specifi-
cally, we discuss how educators in the study mediated outside restrictions
on children’s play outside. A final outcome of the study was the learning
community in which educators shared ideas and resources and how
this helped build support for advocating for natural outdoor spaces for
children.
766 BLANCHET-COHEN AND ELLIOT

Children’s Multilayered Engagement Outdoors

Most of the children expressed enthusiasm for being outside. We heard an
intensity and eagerness in children’s narratives about playing outside, and
we saw the deep focus of the children and the joyful engagement in our
observations. In each center, children had clearly identified a special place
outdoors. The First Nations program had a rock around which the children
had created a number of games, a large tree that served as a hiding spot for
some children when they needed time on their own, and a clump of bushes
that provided a space to be with a friend. The toddlers showed us their joy as
they climbed a small hill and rolled or ran down the side. In the 3- to
4-year-old program, children spoke of the ravine and others spoke of the
gardens. They treasured the space that allowed for running. The preschool
children were enthusiastic about the ‘‘cave’’ that was part of the landscape
on their hillside. In each program children named a natural space outside,
not a structure.
Children involved all of their senses outdoors. In terms of physical
movement, we saw lots of running outside and other large-muscle activity.
Running was often a favorite activity, with remarks such as ‘‘I love to run
downhill and jump over the benches at the bottom’’ or ‘‘I love to jump
from the top of the rock.’’ We also saw children smell plant leaves, feel
the bark of trees and the soft fur of caterpillars, and taste mint leaves from
a garden. Sand was also intriguing. Children liked digging holes and filling
them with water, or burying things. In one sandbox the children dug
through the sand to the soil below and explained that the ‘‘sand is melted
earth.’’
Outside young children incorporate natural elements into their play and
their movement. A bush could be hidden behind to be alone or with a special
friend; a rock would be climbed a multitude of ways; a tree could be a solid
presence to provide support when waving to a sibling or cousin in the next
yard. Children were also intrigued by the different elements in the
natural environment. One child who had just planted a bean plant told us
that her plant was ‘‘this tall,’’ holding her hands about 2 feet from the
ground.
Bugs and worms attracted many children. In each program, children
spent time examining small living creatures. A toddler educator reported,
‘‘Bugs are thrilling. The children love to see them scamper about, hide
in cracks, or are scared and concerned about being bitten.’’ In the young
parent program, one of the boys was helping another overcome his fear of
caterpillars by encouraging him to hold the caterpillar. Children played
a unique role in encouraging their peers to appreciate the beauties of
nature. At the 3- to 4-year-old program, the caterpillar became a source
 ENGAGEMENT AND LEARNING OUTDOORS 767

of entertainment and discovery. A 3-year-old boy picked up a caterpillar,

saying, ‘‘He is coming with me,’’ and started walking around with the cater-
pillar on his hand and decided, ‘‘Let me give her a flower.’’ An educator
reported,

One child finds a caterpillar and rushes to show the teacher, other children
crowd around to see and touch. After all had a turn, three children took the
caterpillar for a walk around the garden. They put him on different surfaces,
the wood, the rocks, ‘‘Hey! Look, he’s dancing!’’ They finally decided to let
him go free on the raspberry bushes.

Within a natural setting, with its rich diverse materials and opportunities,
the possibilities for imaginary play and learning are endless.
Spending time in a natural setting, children observe nature and have a
unique opportunity to learn about the sources of their food and the seasons
of growing, harvesting, collecting. The toddlers did a spontaneous ‘‘apple
dance’’ when picking the apples to make a pie. The following spring, they
noticed the blossoms in the trees and asked if they were the trees where
the apples had come from. They noted the seasonal transformations of the
trees, showing an ability to connect to a cycle of nature. Children in the First
Nations program shared stories about their trip with elders to the beach that
was a traditional area for gathering crabs. They loved going to the beach to
learn about clams and crabs. They too were introduced to a traditional and
seasonal cycle. The 3- to 4-year-old program had another example of a
natural cycle that the children noted. A stream they saw regularly while
walking to the small forest behind their center was full of water in the winter
and dried up in the summer. Each of these stories illustrates the local knowl-
edge and stories the children were accumulating and the sensual, embodied
memories they were storing.
In one of the centers, a large manufactured climber was taken down dur-
ing the study, providing a unique opportunity to observe changes in play.
When the climber was there, children used it little and for a purpose other
than climbing—as a platform to look out over the playground or a place
to meet with friends. During an observation session there was an interesting
dialogue between the children and the researcher:

Researcher: Do you like the climber?

Child 1: Actually, I like the swings best.
Child 2: Everybody likes the swings best.
Child 3: They are going to take the climber down.
Child 1: What are you writing down?
Child 2: I will show you how I slide.
768 BLANCHET-COHEN AND ELLIOT

Child 2: I will show you on my tummy this time; I like it on my tummy best.
Child 2: Can you write this down?
Child 1: Can I show you around?

The dialogue shows children’s curiosity about the note-taking but also that
although children commented most often on natural elements, they also
enjoyed some outdoor structures like the swings. Swings were used in a
solitary manner as a place for dreaming and reflection or as a test of skill,
exploring different ways of moving from one swing to the other without
touching the ground. Children often socialized at the swings, with one child
on the swing and a friend standing nearby chatting. The movement of the
swings seemed to have a particular draw.
To replace the climber, loose logs were brought up from the beach and
opened a range of opportunities to diversify play. Likely in response to
someone who had been camping, the children once made a fire circle.
Another time, one log balanced across another log became a seesaw. On
another occasion, it became a police station. According to the educators,
the logs have increased the amount of imaginary play. One explained,
‘‘Before it was imaginative, but now they have to work through how they
are going to move the log. [That] creates more cooperative play, collabor-
ation and problem-solving. I have seen more bonds in play.’’ Educators
remarked on the greater autonomy of children outside, ‘‘They don’t look
to us for approval. They can figure it out on their own.’’ Another explained
how they learn about group work, ‘‘Lots of opportunity for leadership for
workers, leaders . . . they problem-solve a lot out there. How to get from
point A to point B . . . leaders emerge and helpers as well as observers. Lots
of construction, mixing—like early chemistry.’’ The learning opportunities
are rich, varied, and many-layered.

Educators Nurture the Outdoor Connections

Throughout the study, we found that educators play an active role in nur-
turing young children’s relationships with nature. As one educator
explained, ‘‘Children are naturally attracted to nature, but that we have
enthusiasm for their explorations also helps.’’ In each program, educators
drew on and adapted to the natural features of their immediate landscape
and surroundings. The 3- to 4-year-old program took advantage of its close-
ness to a forested ravine. The children considered the ravine the ‘‘real play-
ground,’’ though it was not actually part of their playground. In the ravine
the children and educators watched the stream flow full and noisy in the
winter and dry to a trickle in the summer. The preschool program took
advantage of small streams created during the rainy season and encouraged
 ENGAGEMENT AND LEARNING OUTDOORS 769

children to divert water and create dams. The First Nations program was
close to the beach and arranged outings with elders to share information
on harvesting shellfish.
Educators created opportunities for young children’s exploration. One
recollected bringing loose pieces of wood for the toddlers to play with from
a tree recently cut down at her own home. She was curious to see what
young children would do with these different sizes and shapes of sticks.
One day during the observation we watched a boy select a crooked knobby
stick and use it in four different ways: as a telescope, as part of a campfire,
as something to build with, and as a pointer. The program for the 3- to
4-year-olds had created gardens where interested children cared for rasp-
berry canes, pumpkin plants, and peas and dug for worms. Exploring the
nature reserve, educators from the preschool program provided the children
with space and permission to roam, encouraging them to roam around as
long as they were in eyesight.
Focus group discussions revealed that educators appreciated being
outdoors with the children because of the improved quality of their relation-
ships with children as well as the learning opportunities it presented.
Educators are more likely to be co-learners with children outside in the
natural landscape because unlike the inside, they are less able to control
the environment and the discoveries and often are discovering natural
phenomena at the same time as the children. One of the educators
mentioned that she had had to research erosion in order to answer questions
posed by the children. In several ways, being outside encourages educators
to be more exploratory and more imaginative. Not knowing in what
direction the children’s discoveries will take them, educators must be
flexible.
In some ways, interactions with children outside can be demanding
because of a shift in roles. One educator remarked that a common perspec-
tive among educators on time outside is that it is ‘‘break time. [Time to]
stand with their coffee . . . staff time to chat and have a hot beverage. Inter-
acting with kids was seen as radical. I was told I need to step back.’’
But these educators described the need to be intently in tune with what is
happening: ‘‘We can be more focused. It is far more on the kids.’’ Another
one affirmed, ‘‘I like to be really involved either standing back to see
where play takes them, or stepping in when [it is] slowing down.’’ Another
educator stated, ‘‘There is more participation of the teachers in the kids’
play.’’
Educators also perhaps felt less of a need to impose structure outdoors.
The outdoors changes how young children behave with one another and
with educators and allows them to explore multiple roles. Expectations
are distinct: ‘‘I find it better outside, they are calmer. It is freer, they don’t
770 BLANCHET-COHEN AND ELLIOT

expect a structure as much outside, an expectation though when they come

inside.’’ Outside educators also have different conversations with children:
‘‘They ask more questions outside, even about our own families and life -
. . . they ask more personal questions. I don’t have those conversations
inside.’’
Motivating educators to be outside with the children was their own child-
hood memories. Each of the educators had a story to relate of his or her own
enjoyment of being outside as a child. One person remembered the creek
that ran behind her house that she spent lots of time exploring; another
person remembered creating houses and little villages with stones, moss,
and sticks; yet another remembered a favorite tree. Paying attention to their
own joy in childhood allowed the educators to connect in the present to the
children’s joy at being outside.
Overall, the educators agreed that the children were more relaxed outside
and there was less conflict. An educator from the toddler program reasoned
that this was due to the fact that children feel less crowded and more
occupied and therefore have less reason to say ‘‘my thing’’ or ‘‘mine.’’ She
further explained, ‘‘When outside, it is not so intense, if we have someone
saying goodbye to parents and it’s a difficult separation . . . [all the children]
will pick it up inside, it affects them less outside.’’ The outdoors makes
interactions more peaceful, less intense.

Educators Mediate Restrictions

Emerging from our findings was an identification of educators’ roles in
mediating external restrictions that might constrict children’s exploration
outdoors. Thus, educators adopted unique ways of dealing with the specific
safety issues that arose with some of the children’s favorite spots and activi-
ties. At the First Nations program, educators recognized that the children
loved the rock. Although concerned with the children’s safety, they under-
stood that jumping off the rock from different places at different stages
was a rite of passage and allowed this play. The educators of the 3- to
4-year-olds told the children that in venturing outside the fence into the
forest they needed to be in eyesight and permitted the children their explora-
tions. The infant=toddler educators understood the children’s need to be in
the puddles and bought muddy buddies for all the children. At the pre-
school, when children would go into the small ‘‘cave’’ educators monitored
the children’s activities from afar, allowing the children the feeling of
seclusion and privacy.
While engaging with children in the outside space, educators were often
anticipating whether they might be transgressing licensing regulations. We
found that each program kept ‘‘secrets’’ from licensing. They made decisions
 ENGAGEMENT AND LEARNING OUTDOORS 771

that contravened regulations based on their understanding of the children’s

needs, of the environment, and of their own experience. For instance, in
bringing in the branches from the cut-down tree for the toddlers, the
educator asked herself,

Would it be safe for toddlers? Well, let’s try them. I brought the sticks and no
one got hurt. Rocks did not go over so well. They could pick them up and they
dropped on people’s toes. We have to keep experimenting.

Educators were critical of regulations that limit children’s exploration and

learning regardless of the context. In one case, a center chose to keep the
cherry tree in its yard. They explained, ‘‘We have to be aware of the dangers
of eating the pits and that the bark is toxic, but it is worth keeping to enjoy
the cherries.’’ Educators tended to trust children’s abilities to manage their
own risk taking. Children usually have a clear sense of what they are capable
of and what is a safe risk, as we saw from the boy who liked to run down the
hill and jump over the benches at the bottom.
Educators saw the importance of allowing children to deal with risk as
part of preparing them for life. Once we observed an interaction in which
young children were jumping off benches at a height above the limit
approved by licensing regulations. The educators worked with the children
to break the jump into two stages, thereby maintaining some of the thrill for
the children and keeping to the safety rules.
Another educator was highly critical of the role of licensing, saying, ‘‘If
[licensing] had their way they would have [the plants and rocks] all out. It
is like they were never children . . . boring.’’ Several considered the current
system inadequate, citing the tension between concerns for protection and
pressures for learning: ‘‘You can’t protect from everything . . . we go over-
board with protecting from nature. You need to learn from this. We just
have to watch because of licensing.’’
In addition to considering licensing restrictions, programs have to
convince parents of the value of the outdoors to their child’s development.
Several programs reported that some of their parents were uncomfortable
with the children going outside. Sometimes this concern was one of cleanli-
ness and keeping clothes tidy, other times there was a concern about cold or
rain. In response, several programs have included in their policies and hand-
books a commitment to interacting with the real world outside, advising
parents that the children and educators might ‘‘go outdoors with a
moment’s notice.’’ Educators actively negotiated concerns about safety
while providing experiences for children that were rich and satisfying.
Educators felt that parents became more comfortable with their children’s
play outside.
772 BLANCHET-COHEN AND ELLIOT

The Learning Community Supports Change

Another finding from the study is how the research with its ongoing dis-
cussion group (which still continues) encouraged educators to reflect more
deeply and carefully on the value of the outdoors in early childhood edu-
cation. Although each program had been investigating on its own, the dis-
cussions strengthened the educators’ interest in the outdoors, encouraging
them to try different things and to spend even more time outside. Educators
also became more interested in the children’s perspectives about play out-
doors. Some of the educators began to pay closer attention to the nature
they experienced outside with the children. An educator e-mailed us after
a discussion group in which she shared how her reflections were being
instigated by the research:

I have actually been thinking about the conversation I had with you and
Natasha towards the end of November. More specifically the last question
you asked: ‘‘What I learn from the children when in a natural environment.’’
I think probably the greatest thing I learn from the children (or even the best
thing I get from the children) is to have a sense of wonder and curiosity about
what is around me.

The idea sharing during the Natural Play Space discussion groups gave
an impetus to the participants to pursue changes to their outside spaces in
new ways. Being exposed to the possibilities led to exploring different
avenues. Sharing ideas with the First Nations program, we heard how they
wanted to build a Big House, which is of great significance to the Coast
Salish culture. The Big House is a place for families to come together to
share stories and pass on traditions. However, licensing officials at first
refused to approve the building because it would have a fire pit, a vital part
of the Big House. For the program, it had become an issue of cultural safety;
the director of the program felt that the regulation was oppressive, as they
knew how to best care for their children. She stated, ‘‘Our children have
been coming to the Big House for hundreds of years. Children know to stay
away from the fire.’’ After multiple discussions with licensing and the direc-
tor of the program, the fire pit was permitted. The accommodation involved
putting fire extinguishers at both ends of the Big House and building a
smaller fire pit. Exchanges in the learning community helped her as well
as provided her with valuable arguments.
Within our discussion group, we were able to create a safe space for
dialogue. Inviting licensing officials to be part of the discussion gave an
opportunity for educators to articulate the benefits they saw the children
gaining from their explorations outdoors in more natural settings and to
gain confidence in advocating for the children’s engagement in a natural
 ENGAGEMENT AND LEARNING OUTDOORS 773

setting. In turn, the licensing officers were able to hear some of the concerns
of the educators and respond to misconceptions. In a final discussion with
educators and licensing, in which we presented the results of the study, we
raised the issue of safety and ‘‘secrets.’’ Although the licensing officers
acknowledged that their primary concern is safety, they also explained
recent efforts to move in a new direction. With the recognition that regula-
tions had become restrictive and cumbersome, there was a move to be more
flexible and negotiate with early childhood programs on how they could
ensure children’s safety when some aspect seemed potentially unsafe. We
saw the importance of sharing research to support the voices of educators
and children as well as promoting progress in licensing procedures.

DISCUSSION

This study speaks first of all to the significance of children’s engagement

with the natural materials outdoors to their learning and development. In
paying attention to where and how children use their outdoor space, we
observed their eagerness to climb big rocks and explore their relationship
with the rocks, use raspberry leaves for pie, turn over rocks to find crabs,
and find a connection to insects and worms. We were repeatedly reminded
of Wilson’s (1993) notion that humans have an innate ‘‘emotional affiliation
to other living organisms’’ (p. 31). A natural play space provides an opport-
unity for children to discover who they are in relationship to the trees,
plants, living creatures, and terrain of their environment. They discover
the abilities of their bodies to climb rocks, dig in the dirt, and lift logs with
a group of friends. They socialize as they coconstruct and share their wonder
and curiosity. As shown here, a natural outdoor environment can provide
for a holistic education, meeting the UNCRC’s aim for education.
This study points to the importance of revisiting the prevalence of
playgrounds covered over with rubber matting, pea gravel, and concrete
with a prefabricated climbing structure (Herrington & Lesmeister, 2006).
The use of a rights-based methodology suggests that natural outdoor spaces
that reflect the local geography, flora and fauna, paths, and streams and
the seasonal changes that take place within that locale would better meet
the interests of both the children as well as the educators (Elliott, 2008;
Keeler, 2008).
Natural play spaces in early childhood centers can also be the building
blocks to creating environmental citizens among young children. All four
outdoor spaces involved offered lessons for learning: the fruit trees to
measure the season and learn about the fruit cycle, the height of the rock
to measure how much stronger or bigger a child has become, the garden
774 BLANCHET-COHEN AND ELLIOT

to discover the fruits of the earth. In learning to read the local geography,
children develop their attachment to place and their sense of security and
competence. They may also, within that landscape, begin to feel a responsi-
bility to protect the environment (Davis, 2009; Gruenewald, 2003; Sobel,
2008). Being in a less controlled environment, educators can also be fulfilled.
As they explore and reflect with the children in the outdoors in ways that
stimulate their own imaginations and understandings they may have an
experience that Csikszentmihalyi (1990) called flow. Being present to the
children and concentrating on the activity, the educators can find themselves
focused and flowing with the experience.
Although young children have a natural affiliation with nature, this study
highlights the role of educators in nurturing the relationship. Educators pro-
vide the mentorship evoked by Carson (1965), who spoke of the companion-
ship of an adult to introduce a child to the wonders that can be found
outside in the trees, the wind, the ants, and the earth. Indeed, ‘‘access to out-
door space is not enough to engender such attitudes; the use and manage-
ment of the outdoor space by adults is as important as access itself’’
(Maynard & Waters, 2007, p. 257). Educators are active outside in ways that
call for creativity, flexibility, questioning, and listening. These skills and
qualities are what General Comment No. 7 (United Nations, 2005) calls
for in order to implement a rights-based approach to programming in the
outdoors. In our own research activities with children, as we tried to be
researchers who listened carefully, we had to try various activities and ques-
tions to reach understanding. To remain open to children’s responses, we
had to be careful not to judge too quickly what they might mean, realizing
that we could not know their reality completely. We were reminded of
Rinaldi’s (2006) comment: ‘‘[It] is not easy. It requires deep awareness’’
(p. 65). In addition to the patience and creativity called for in General
Comment No. 7, we had to be humble, aware that we listened and observed
carefully but did not always understand.
Moreover, the research points to the role of adults as advocates for
rights-based programming. Educators were critical in subtly curtailing
hypervigilant licensing regulations. Children, as shown in this study, seek
the opportunity to challenge their skills and engage their imaginations; they
want challenges that slightly exceed their abilities, and if such challenges are
not readily apparent, they find them. When running downhill becomes easy,
the action is complicated by ‘‘jumping over the benches at the bottom.’’ This
was not the planned use of the benches! Listening to children has therefore
meant contravening licensing regulations that focus on safety issues with lit-
tle consideration of children’s own ability and capacity to calculate risk. To
provide a rich, stimulating, and challenging environment in which children
can grow and learn, each program kept ‘‘secrets’’ from licensing. This study
 ENGAGEMENT AND LEARNING OUTDOORS 775

is a reminder of the importance of adult allies in implementing a

rights-based approach and the need to overcome the tensions that may be
at play in providing for a better alignment of knowledge, practice, and
policy.

CONCLUSION

More broadly, this study speaks to the importance of collaboration between

researchers, educators, children, and decision makers in providing for the
best interests of the child. Implementing a rights-based approach is about
ensuring young children’s participation as well as creating partnerships
among those concerned to promote and advocate on behalf of children.
Early childhood educators, reflecting on their own experiences, understand
the importance of children connecting with the natural landscape. Without
the exchange of ideas, the sharing of possibilities, and the consideration of
experiences and evidence from elsewhere, young children’s perspectives and
interest in natural play spaces and materials can be ignored, the potential of
the natural play space will not be realized, and children will not have the
experiences of interacting with the richness and diversity of a natural setting.
The learning community that emerged from this study created a momentum
that gave voice to children and educators, put pressure on licensing
regulations, and served as an inspiration to hesitant parents. The work is
continuing.

REFERENCES
Berman, M. G., Jonides, J., & Kaplan, S. (2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting with
nature. Psychological Science, 19, 1207–1121.
Blanchet-Cohen, N. (2009). Children, violence and agency: In and beyond the UN Study on
Violence Against Children (Innocenti Working Paper No. IWP-2009–10). Florence, Italy:
UNICEF.
Carson, R. (1965). The sense of wonder. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Chawla, L. (1998). Significant life experiences revisited: A review of research on sources of
environmental sensitivity. Journal of Environmental Education, 29(3), 11–21.
Chawla, L. (2007). Childhood experiences associated with care for the natural world: A
theoretical framework for empirical research. Children, Youth and Environments, 17(4),
144–170.
Clark, A. (2007). Early childhood spaces: Involving young children and practitioners in the
design process. In Working papers in early childhood development (pp. 1–42). The Hague,
Netherlands: Bernard van Leer Foundation.
Clark, A. (2010). Young children as protagonists and the role of participatory, visual methods
in engaging multiple perspectives. American Journal of Community Psychology, 6(1–2),
115–123.
776 BLANCHET-COHEN AND ELLIOT

Cobb, E. (1977). The ecology of imagination in childhood. London, England: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Cosco, N. (2006). Motivation to move: Physical affordances in preschool play area.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Heriot Watt University, Scotland.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY:
Harper & Row.
Dahlberg, G., & Moss, P. (2005). Ethics and politics in early childhood education. London,
England: RoutledgeFalmer.
Davis, J. (2009). Revealing the research ‘hole’ of early childhood education for sustainability: A
preliminary survey of the literature. Environmental Education Research, 15(2), 227–241.
Elliot, E. (2007). ‘‘We’re not robots’’: The voices of infant=toddler caregivers. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Elliot, E., & Blanchet-Cohen, N. (2009). Pollinating our passion for the outdoors: Working in
a community of researchers, educators and children. Interaction: Canadian Child Care
Federation, 23(2), 28–30.
Elliott, S. (Ed.), (2008). The outdoor playspace naturally for children birth to five years. Castle
Hill, New South Wales, Australia: Pademelon Press.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York, NY: Basic.
Gruenewald, D. A. (2003). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Educational
Researcher, 32(4), 3–12.
Herrington, S., & Lesmeister, C. (2006). The design of landscapes at child-care centres: Seven
Cs. Landscape Research, 31(1), 63–82.
Herrington, S., & Studtmann, K. (1998). Landscape interventions: New directions for the
design of children’s outdoor play environments. Landscape and Urban Planning, 42,
191–205.
Keeler, R. (2008). Natural playscapes: Creating outdoor play environments for the soul.
Redmond, WA: Exchange Press.
Kuo, F., & Faber, T. A. (2004). A potential natural treatment for attention-deficit=
hyperactivity disorder: Evidence from a national study. American Journal of Public Health,
94, 1580–1586.
Lansdown, G. (2005). What’s the difference? Implications of a child-focus in rights-based
programming?. Retrieved from http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/en/54_6707.htm
Lester, S., & Maudsley, M. (2007). Play, naturally: A review of children’s natural play. London,
England: National Children’s Bureau.
Louv, R. (2005). Last child in the woods: Saving children from nature-deficit disorder. Chapel
Hill, NC: Algonquin Books.
Lundy, L., & McEvoy, L. (2009). Developing outcomes for educational services: A children’s
rights-based approach. Effective Education, 1(1), 43–60.doi:10.1080=19415530903044050
Maynard, T., & Waters, J. (2007). Learning in the outdoor environment a missed opportunity?
Early Years, 27(3), 255–265.
Moore, R. C., & Marcus, C. C. (2008). Healthy planet, healthy children: Designing nature
into the daily spaces of childhood. In S. R. Kellert, J. Heerwagen, & M. Mador (Eds.), Bio-
philic design: The theory, science and practice of bringing buildings to life (pp. 153–203).
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Orr, D. (1993). Environmental literacy: Education as if the earth mattered. Great Barrington,
MA: Twelfth Annual E.F. Schumacher Lectures.
Reilly, R. C. (2010). Participatory case study. In A. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of case study research (Vol. 2, pp. 658–661). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
 ENGAGEMENT AND LEARNING OUTDOORS 777

Rinaldi, C. (2006). In dialogue with reggio emilia: Listening, researching and learning. London,
England: Routledge.
Rohde, C. L. E., & Kendle, A. D. (1994). Report to english nature—human well-being, natural
landscapes and wildlife in urban areas: A review. Bath, England: University of Reading,
Department of Horticulture and Landscape and the Research Institute for the Care of
the Elderly.
Rohde, C. L. E., & Kendle, A. D. (1994). Report to english nature—human well-being, natural
landscapes and wildlife in urban areas: A review. Bath, England: University of Reading,
Department of Horticulture and Landscape and the Research Institute for the Care of
the Elderly.
Rousseau, J. J. (1979). Emile: or On Education. (A. Bloom, Trans.). New York, Basic Books.
(Originally published in 1762)
Statistics Canada. (2006). Women in canada: A gender-based statistical report. Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada: Author.
Tannock, M. (2008). Rough and tumble play: An investigation of the perceptions of educators
and young children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35, 357–361.
Temple, V. A., Naylor, P.-J., Rhodes, R. E., & Wharf-Higgins, J. (2009). Physical activity of
children in family child care. Applied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism, 34, 794–798.
United Nations. (2005). General comment no. 7. Implementing child rights in early education.
New York, NY: United Nations.
Wilson, E. O. (1993). Biophilia and the conservation ethic. In S. R. Kellert & E. O. Wilson
(Eds.), The biophilia hypothesis (pp. 31–41). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Copyright of Early Education & Development is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.