Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning

ISSN: 1472-9679 (Print) 1754-0402 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raol20

Social contexts of development in natural outdoor

environments: children’s motor activities, personal
challenges and peer interactions at the river and
the creek

Cara McClain & Maureen Vandermaas-Peeler

To cite this article: Cara McClain & Maureen Vandermaas-Peeler (2016) Social contexts of
development in natural outdoor environments: children’s motor activities, personal challenges
and peer interactions at the river and the creek, Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor
Learning, 16:1, 31-48, DOI: 10.1080/14729679.2015.1050682

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2015.1050682

Published online: 31 Jul 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 193

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=raol20

Download by: [Flinders University of South Australia] Date: 16 March 2016, At: 02:23
 Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 2016
Vol. 16, No. 1, 31–48, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2015.1050682

Social contexts of development in natural outdoor environments:

children’s motor activities, personal challenges and peer interactions at
the river and the creek
Cara McClain* and Maureen Vandermaas-Peeler

Department of Psychology, Elon University, Campus Box 2337, Elon, NC 27244, USA
Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning 2016.16:31-48.

This study examined the influence of spending time outdoors on young children’s
physical and socioemotional development. We observed preschoolers’ activities in two
naturally provisioned outdoor environments over the course of one year. Eleven
preschoolers were videotaped continuously for 16 days at a local river and 9 days at
a creek adjacent to the school. In addition to the quantitative analyses of children’s
behaviors, a case study of three children’s experiences over the course of the year was
conducted. Both the river and the creek settings encouraged a multitude of physical
and play behaviors with similar types of affordances, including flat surfaces for
running, rocks for climbing and jumping off, and water for exploration and play, but
the wilder environment (river) afforded more risk and personal challenges.
Observations of children’s motor activities, play and responses to challenging environ-
mental features supported the importance of accumulated experience and social context
for the development of confidence in the face of risk, individual exploration and
positive social support and engagement with peers.
Keywords: nature; outdoor play; affordances; preschoolers

Introduction
In the last few decades there has been growing international concern that children are
spending less time outdoors and becoming more sedentary (Fjørtoft, 2001; Louv, 2008).
Changes in urban environments may be particularly restrictive for children’s outdoor play,
and in some countries play is becoming increasingly supervised due to safety concerns
(Prince, Allin, Sandseter, & Ärkemalm-Hagsér, 2013; Sandseter, 2012). Regulated and
institutionalized play experiences may be replacing more informal play outdoors (Kernan,
2010; Stanley, 2011). In these ‘sanitized’ spaces, children have fewer opportunities for
freedom of movement, choice and exploration. These trends are cause for concern, given
the importance of spending unrestricted time outdoors in varied and challenging environ-
ments for children’s healthy development (Louv, 2008; Sandseter, 2012).
Natural outdoor environments are often associated with free movement and space
for children to play, which are essential elements of children’s learning and develop-
ment (Maynard & Waters, 2007). As compared with traditional playgrounds, natural
environments may provide children with more opportunities for challenging play and
gross-motor activities (Fjørtoft, 2001; Sandseter, 2009). Natural landscapes with varied
topography such as steep slopes, woodland vegetation, rocks and meadows afford a
diversity of play opportunities for children and increase opportunities for independent

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

© 2015 Institute for Outdoor Learning

 32 C. McClain and M. Vandermaas-Peeler

exploration, mastery of risk and social collaborations (Chawla, 2007; Fjørtoft, 2001;
Sandseter, 2007; Stanley, 2011).
The present study was designed to add to a small but growing body of literature
examining the influence of spending time outdoors on young children’s physical and
socioemotional development. We observed preschoolers’ activities in two naturally provi-
sioned outdoor environments over the course of one year: a creek adjacent to the pre-
school and a trail along a river in a local state park. We adopted an ecological approach to
the data collection in order to assess enduring and complex interactions in the children’s
immediate environment over time, to take into account multiple environments in which
the children’s interactions take place and to include various developmental outcomes
(Bronfenbrenner, 1994). A multilevel ecological approach enables researchers to analyze
not only individual outcomes but also influential aspects of the social and natural
surroundings with a more holistic approach (Cintrón-Moscoso, 2010).
Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning 2016.16:31-48.

Affordances in natural environments

According to theoretical tenets of ecological psychology, children are active agents who
learn by exploring their environments as part of a relational system (Chawla, 2007;
Gibson, 1979). Their perceptual experience extends beyond an awareness of objects’
structures to an awareness of their functional significance. Importantly, the functional
features of an environment are determined by attributes of the environment itself (e.g.
large rocks afford opportunities for climbing, hiding, etc.) and by the attributes and
behaviors of the individual (a child may choose to run or skip along a path, whereas an
older adult may prefer to walk more slowly). Thus, the affordances of a given environ-
ment are what it ‘invites’ an individual to do, and are uniquely dependent upon a person’s
size, strengths, skills, fears and so forth (Gibson, 1979; Heft, 1988; Sandseter, 2009).
Studying children’s behavior in relation to natural environmental affordances enables a
characterization of different features in terms of their functional possibilities as well as
their psychological meaning (Heft, 1988). For example, a large rock affords climbing and
hiding opportunities, but not all people who encounter it will choose to climb or hide. In
addition, children who climb the rock and pretend to be a pirate or a bear are exercising
different psychological resources as compared with adults who may climb the rock and
use the space for meditation or conversation.
Prior research has examined the relations between environmental affordances,
motor activities and play behaviors. Fjørtoft (2001) compared children’s play and
motor activities in two environments in Norway. Children in the ‘experimental
group’ attended a kindergarten that regularly visited a nearby forest, whereas chil-
dren in the comparison groups attended one of two neighborhood kindergartens that
typically utilized a traditional outdoor playground for outdoor time. According to
Fjørtoft, there was gradual improvement in the motor fitness of the children in the
experimental group, such as increased abilities to master the rough and unstructured
landscape over time and significantly higher scores on a test of balance and coordi-
nation at the post test. In addition, Fjørtoft (2001) observed a relationship between
the topography and the types of play activities in the natural play environment. For
example, the shrubs afforded opportunities for games such as hide-and-seek and
fantasy or pretend play. Children named their favorite places in the woods, such as
‘Space Ship,’ showing a connection between the spaces and their play. In another
study comparing two Norwegian preschools, one with a traditional playground and
one with a nature playground, Sandseter (2009) examined risky play, defined as
 Natural outdoor environments 33

‘thrilling and exciting forms of play that involve a risk of physical injury’ (p. 439).
Based on Heft (1988)’s taxonomy, Sandseter (2009) generated a list of environmen-
tal affordances such as climbable features, jump-down-off-able features, balance-on-
able features, swing-on-able features, smooth surfaces and dangerous elements. She
found that both playgrounds afforded extensive opportunities for risky play, with
some interesting differences. There were no dangerous elements present in the
traditional preschool’s playground, whereas the nature playground included danger-
ous features such as cliffs, a pond and a fire pit. In addition to a higher degree of
risk, there were fewer restrictions in the nature playground. Sandseter (2009) argued
that children seek risky play in any environment, but the natural provisions of the
nature playground afforded children more opportunities for exhilarating and intense
play experiences.
These and other studies have demonstrated that natural environmental affordances are
Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning 2016.16:31-48.

linked with varied and demanding physical and social experiences. However, little is
known about young children’s socioemotional responses to the physical challenges of the
environment and ways in which their responses may change with accumulated experience
in the natural environments. For example, children’s initial responses to a muddy, slippery
slope may include excitement and fear. After repeated experience traversing muddy,
slippery terrain, children may demonstrate increased confidence and begin to incorporate
the physical challenges into their play. The physical and social aspects of a child’s
experience are deeply, intrinsically related (Chawla, 2007). In order to understand chil-
dren’s experiences outdoors, various elements of the social context should be considered,
including the affordances, the child’s individual responses and the interactions with peers
and teachers (Stanley, 2011).
The purpose of the present study was to examine the ways in which two natural
environments influenced preschoolers’ physical and socioemotional development, includ-
ing ways in which they interacted with various environmental affordances and their peers
over the course of one year in preschool. In particular, we examined motor activity (e.g.
running, jumping and climbing), children’s personal challenges in relation to environ-
mental features (e.g. difficulty navigating steep rocks or rushing water) and their social
interactions with their peers (e.g. playing, collaborating, or experiencing frustration). The
specific research questions included the following: what types of physical behaviors are
elicited by various environmental affordances in an outdoor environment that is semi-
structured as compared with an unstructured wild space (e.g. includes built elements
versus entirely natural); how do different children respond to personal challenges (e.g.
struggling to cross a creek or climb a steep rock) with accumulated experience in the
natural environments; and what types of positive and negative peer interactions occur as
children interact in natural environments over the course of one year? These questions
were answered for a group of children in aggregate, quantitative data and for a smaller
case study of three preschoolers in order to provide a rich description of their experiences
over the course of one year in a qualitative analysis.

Methods
Context and participants
The present study was a case study of a small, non-profit preschool located in a mid-sized
city in the southeast United States. The preschool has mixed-age grouping with a total of
 34 C. McClain and M. Vandermaas-Peeler

12 children staying in the school for two or three years. The school is part-time with
students attending four days a week from 8:30 a.m. until 1:30 p.m.
The school is Reggio-inspired, focusing on a curriculum of authentic work inspired by
the children’s passions where the classroom and outdoor environment act as the ‘third
teacher’ (Edwards, Gandini, & Forman, 1998). The Reggio Emilia approach is a peda-
gogy that was developed in Reggio Emilia, Italy and emphasizes inquiry, play, scaffolding
and a social-constructivist approach to teaching and learning (Edwards et al., 1998; Inan,
Trundle, & Kantor, 2010). The preschools are child-responsive and adapt to children’s
changing interests. The environment is called the ‘third teacher’ because, along with the
two teachers, it provides opportunities for children to engage in stimulating and mean-
ingful work in a space that is organized, beautiful and well provisioned with extensive
materials and tools (Edwards et al., 1998).
The school has an extensive outdoor environment with a playground, garden and
Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning 2016.16:31-48.

creek located on site. Five children also go to a local river with a teacher once a week to
explore and play. Two outdoor contexts were selected for the purposes of the present
study: the creek and the river.

Creek
The creek is a moderately provisioned, semi-structured space that is an extension of the
school’s property located behind the playground. Although the school and playground can
be seen from the creek, it is separated by a fence and children must walk down a path to
get to it. The creek covers a small area and includes a rope swing, two bridges, a climbing
structure, a boardwalk and a bamboo thicket (see Figures 1 and 2).
The creek is not always open to children (unlike the playground and adjacent garden).
If it is a ‘creek day’, a teacher will be there the entire time and each child must come down
at some point. However, children can come and go and stay as long as they wish, which
means the group of children at the creek changes frequently and older, more experienced
children mix readily with younger children for whom the creek is their first interaction
with a wild space.

Figure 1. The school’s creek showing one bridge and the bamboo thicket.
 Natural outdoor environments 35

Figure 2. The school’s creek showing the boardwalk.

Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning 2016.16:31-48.

River
The river, a wild, natural, unstructured area, is part of a state park located 15 minutes
away from the school. There is fast-moving water, a rough path and many large rocks to
climb (see Figures 3 and 4). Five children and one teacher are together for two to three
hours at the river each week, hiking portions of a one-mile loop trail. While the creek is a
semi-structured environment because of the built features (e.g. bridges, rope swing,
boardwalk), the river is an unstructured environment. A comparison of these two spaces
enabled an examination of the unique impact of various environmental affordances on
children’s behaviors.

Participants
The participants were 11 mixed-aged preschoolers (five males, six females) ranging in age
from 33 to 59 months at the beginning of the study. Six of the children were Caucasian,
two were African-American, two were Asian and one was Latino. Based on a

Figure 3. The local river showing a typical area off the trail, including rocks and a fallen tree.
 36 C. McClain and M. Vandermaas-Peeler
Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning 2016.16:31-48.

Figure 4. The local river showing the trail with steps, a bridge and water (in the top part of the
image).

demographic survey administered to parents, average family income was greater than the
US average, indicating the families are relatively affluent. Both of the school’s teachers,
Lisa and Sharon, participated as well. They are female Caucasian, and at the time of the
study were 51 and 43 years old. Lisa had been at the school since it opened in 1990
(22 years) and Sharon had been there for six years. All teacher and student names are
pseudonyms. Research was approved by the university institutional review board in
collaboration with the school teachers, and permission for all observations was provided
by the children’s parents.

The researchers
The primary researcher who conducted all data collection (Cara) was a participant
observer who participated only if a child or teacher spoke directly to her or if there was
information that needed to be communicated immediately (e.g. a dangerous situation).
Rather than looking from the outside in, as a participant observer, the researcher was able
to fit smoothly into the school and remain unnoticed much of the time because the
children were already familiar with her. The researcher is related to one of the teachers,
had visited the school frequently and had previously worked with some of the children at
the school’s summer camp. The children felt comfortable engaging with the researcher but
 Natural outdoor environments 37

mostly ignored her. The second researcher was only involved in data analysis and did not
collect any data.

Data collection
The researcher conducted observations of children’s nature experiences at the river and
creek beginning in August 2012 and ending in May 2013. The children were videotaped
continuously with a total of 16 days at the river and 9 days at the creek for 50 hours of
video. At the river, because the children go in groups of five, it was possible to record
almost all of the interactions for each visit. Because the teachers complete extensive
documentation on a daily basis (Edwards et al., 1998), the children were already used to
having their pictures taken and their language recorded.
Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning 2016.16:31-48.

Data analysis
The primary data analysis focused on environmental affordances in conjunction with
motor activities, personal challenges and social behaviors. The first hour (or entire
video if less than one hour) was coded for the 16 river days and 9 creek days. Coding
was completed using Observer XT 11.5, a software package that is used to code the
frequencies of various behaviors layered with the time spent in each environmental
affordance. An extensive coding manual was developed with the creek and the river as
the independent variables. To establish inter-rater reliability, two raters independently
coded 20% of the data, and the calculated percent agreement was 80%.
Affordances were coded by duration based on the focal children being videotaped
(e.g. if most children were in the water, water was coded as the affordance). All behaviors
of children and teachers were coded as frequencies. Behaviors were not double-coded
unless the person stopped the target behavior, began doing something else and then
returned to the initial behavior.
Physical behaviors were coded once per continuous event (e.g. Michael jumps off a log
and then Anthony jumps) unless the children moved to a different part of the river (e.g.
getting wet), more children joined in or a different type of physical behavior occurred (e.g.
jumping off the river bank and then jumping off the bridge). Emotional state was coded for
each physical behavior, noting if a child was clearly experiencing a negative emotion.
Pretend play was defined as imaginative role-play with symbolic transformation and
pretend content. Games, or social physical play, occurred when a physical experience
became organized and social, taking on the routine of a game (e.g. turn-taking, structure,
spoken or unspoken rules). Play episodes were coded as one event with a behavioral
modifier for the theme (e.g. cooking, fishing).
Positive and negative social behaviors (e.g. helping, conflict) were only coded for
child-to-child interaction (not child-to-teacher interaction). In addition, if a child exhibited
two different types of positive (or negative) social behaviors close together in time, both
were coded.
Personal challenge was coded when a child struggled with something initially but
continued to try or was challenged by the teacher to continue engaging with the difficulty
(e.g. working to cross a river). For each personal challenge, the following was coded: who
(which child), initial emotional response to the challenge, help (from a teacher, a child or
both), resolution (completion or not) and emotional state at the end.
In conjunction with the primary data analysis, a case-study analysis was conducted to
describe three children’s repeated experiences at the river and the creek over the course of the
 38 C. McClain and M. Vandermaas-Peeler

year. Three children were selected for this detailed analysis in order to provide examples of
the preschoolers’ different levels of comfort and experience with outdoor environments,
depicting change over time. In particular, the case study examined how experience in natural
settings influenced three preschoolers’ socioemotional and physical development by analyz-
ing their personal challenges and positive and negative social behaviors:

Child 1: Michael (male, age four) was an older child who was very comfortable being
outside. He had been at the school for a year already, going to the river and creek many
times. During the course of the study, he went to the river the most (12 times).
Child 2: Daniel (male, age four) was an older child who felt less comfortable outside,
experiencing many challenges. He had been at the school for a year already, going to the
river and creek many times. During the course of the study, he went to the river the second
most (10 times).
Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning 2016.16:31-48.

Child 3: Sophie (female, age three) was new to the school at the beginning of the study with
no experience at the creek or river. During the course of the study, she went to the river the
least (five times).

To develop the case study, the researchers followed a deductive process where protocol
codes were taken from the quantitative analysis (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014). Using
a prescribed coding system, every instance where Michael, Daniel and Sophie exhibited
personal challenges, positive social behavior or negative social behavior was coded. Each
video recording of the children’s behaviors was watched again and detailed subcodes were
generated for each primary protocol code to enrich the coding and allow for a nuanced
qualitative case-study analysis (Miles et al., 2014). Coding of the location, day, time, context,
emotions, involvement with teachers and other children, and ways in which the experience is
different for the particular child from other children was recorded. When determining results,
the researchers generalized across specific observations and across the subcategories to
describe the children in general. Next, using a constant comparative method, the children
were compared and contrasted, resulting in narratives about each case-study child (Flick,
2006). A constant comparative method emphasizes comparing and interpreting all data
throughout the analytic process through four stages: ‘(1) comparing incidents applicable to
each category, (2) integrating categories and their properties, (3) delimiting the theory, and
(4) writing the theory’ (Flick, 2006, p. 37). Analysis follows a circular process with constant
comparison of codes with codes and classifications that have already been made. Material
that has been coded continues to be integrated into the later comparison process.

Results
To investigate how children develop in the context of their interactions with different
environmental affordances, the researchers examined the influence of the various features
of the environment on children’s motor activity, personal challenges, positive and negative
social interactions with their peers, and pretend play.

Motor activity
At both the creek and the river, children spent the most time on flat and water affordances,
followed by climbable affordances (see Table 1). Both outdoor environments encouraged
physical behavior with an average of 84.6 codes each day at the creek and 58.4 at the river
(see Table 2). The creek had high numbers of the following physical behaviors: falling
 Natural outdoor environments 39

Table 1. Time spent in affordances at the river and the creek.

Creek River

Total duration Daily average Total duration Daily average

Affordance type (minutes) (minutes) (minutes) (minutes)

Flat surface 10,870.1 20.12981 19,374.3 20.18156

Water and 11,056.2 20.47444 18,788.9 19.57177
surrounding area
Climbable 7171.7 13.28093 12,687.3 13.21594
Rough/bumpy/ 427.34 0.79137 4165.04 4.338583
slippery
Sloped surface N/A N/A 2529.91 2.635323
Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning 2016.16:31-48.

Table 2. Overall behavioral frequencies for all children.

Creek River

Behavior Total Mean SD Total Mean SD

Physical behavior
Swinging 46 5.11 2.32 1 0.06 N/A
Running 84 9.33 4.66 168 10.5 3.37
Hiding 2 0.22 N/A 21 1.31 0.85
Balancing 17 1.89 1.34 11 0.69 0.75
Digging/scooping 19 2.11 1.60 31 1.94 1.83
Climbing 108 12 6.84 290 18.13 7.59
Jumping 30 3.33 3.54 20 1.25 1.31
Jumping off 73 8.11 3.55 100 6.25 4.47
Getting wet 24 2.67 4.15 56 3.5 3.92
Falling down/slipping 93 10.33 4.11 171 10.69 5.64
Throwing 33 3.67 2.24 23 1.44 2.11
Splashing 26 2.89 4.55 8 0.5 0.55
Sliding (intentionally) 10 1.11 0.82 27 1.69 1.22
Moving heavy objects 10 1.11 1.29 7 0.44 N/A
Building 6 0.67 0.00 0 0 N/A
Total 581 64.56 4.72 934 58.38 6.24
Play
Pretend play 114 12.67 1.81 146 9.13 1.11
Games 62 6.89 3.37 35 2.19 1.65
Total 176 19.56 2.66 181 11.31 1.22
Social behavior
Positive behaviors 127 14.11 5.13 159 9.94 7.03
Negative behaviors 40 4.44 1.98 16 1 1.09
Total N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Note: ‘Total’ denotes the total number of observed instances across all days. Means were calculated as the total
divided by the number of days at each site (9 for the creek; 16 for the river). SD, standard deviation.

down, jumping off, running, climbing and swinging. The flat surfaces enabled running
while water play and movement around the creek bank encouraged jumping off. The rope
swing meant many games centered on swinging, while the boardwalk and climbing
 40 C. McClain and M. Vandermaas-Peeler

structure enabled climbing. Finally, the mixture of ages at the creek and the rapid move-
ment between affordances yielded a high number of falls.
At the river, climbing, running, falling down and jumping off were the most common
behaviors. As compared with the creek, there were more climbing instances each day
(18.13 versus 12, see Table 2). Between pre-arranged stopping points known as rendez-
vous, children ran on the flat path. Each rendezvous had opportunities for climbing on
rocks and much of the pretend play centered on climbing, jumping off and exploring. The
emphasis on exploration in a wilder environment yielded high numbers of falling.
While the two environments had similar affordances and encouraged many of the
same behaviors, the degree of risk was greater at the river, especially around climbing and
jumping. At the creek, a jump could be no greater than two feet (e.g. off the creek bank)
and the highest climb was about four feet. In contrast, children jumped five feet off large
rocks at the river. Children would climb approximately eight feet into the air on rocks. At
Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning 2016.16:31-48.

one rendezvous, they climbed up the side of a steep hill.

To look more closely at the impact of affordances on children’s development, the
percentages of behaviors per affordance were analyzed (percentages were adjusted for
time spent in each affordance, see Table 3). At the river, flat affordances yielded 15.92%
of all physical behavior codes with 278 instances. The majority of running and hiding
took place on flat surfaces. Other behaviors with significant percentages on a flat surface
included balancing, climbing, jumping, jumping off, throwing and falling (with both
positive and negative responses, see Table 3). Climbable affordances had 16.26% of
physical behaviors with 186 instances (see Table 3). Primary behaviors were climbing,
sliding intentionally and jumping off. Climbable affordances also enabled jumping, falling

Table 3. Percentages of physical behaviors occurring in each affordance type.

Flat Climbable Water

adjusted % adjusted % adjusted %

Physical behavior River Creek River Creek River Creek

Swinging 0.00 0.00 100.0 100.0 0.00 0.00

Running 67.21 65.71 3.06 10.49 11.90 23.80
Hiding 67.43 65.19 5.42 0.00 0.00 0.00
Balancing 5.46 41.59 0.00 0.00 5.63 58.41
Digging/scooping 0.00 16.02 0.00 0.00 53.09 83.98
Climbing 7.49 16.92 24.32 62.44 13.20 20.25
Climbing (negative emotion) 0.00 N/A 16.64 N/A 0.00 N/A
Jumping 16.36 14.32 8.32 43.43 11.24 42.25
Jumping off 12.93 37.38 25.39 28.33 21.59 34.30
Getting wet 3.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 88.58 100.0
Getting wet (negative emotion) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.0 100.0
Falling/slipping (positive/neutral emotion) 9.50 31.32 10.78 31.15 18.76 37.53
Falling/slipping (negative emotion) 26.69 0.00 13.59 100.0 18.35 0.00
Throwing 12.57 13.21 9.60 40.04 48.61 46.75
Splashing 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.81 100.0 94.19
Sliding (intentionally) 1.36 9.56 37.42 43.46 2.81 46.98
Sliding (negative emotion) 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.0 0.00 0.00
Moving heavy objects 0.00 70.36 0.00 0.00 100.0 29.64
Building N/A 100.0 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00
Total 15.92 26.66 16.26 38.82 19.36 34.36
Note: The adjusted percentage was calculated based on the percentage of time spent in each affordance type per
day.
 Natural outdoor environments 41

and swinging. Water and the surrounding area had 19.36% of physical behaviors with 328
instances (see Table 3). The majority of getting wet, digging/scooping, throwing, splash-
ing and moving heavy objects occurred in the water affordance. Other key behaviors
included running, balancing, climbing, jumping, jumping off and falling.
At the creek, flat affordances had 26.66% of physical behaviors with 177 instances
(see Table 3). The majority of running, hiding, balancing, jumping off, building and
moving heavy objects occurred on flat affordances with high levels of climbing, jumping,
throwing and falling as well. Climbing affordances had 170 codes, making up 38.82% of
total physical behaviors (see Table 3). The majority of swinging and climbing occurred on
climbable surfaces. Other notable behaviors included jumping, jumping off, falling and
throwing. Water and the surrounding area had 34.36% of physical behaviors with 232
instances (see Table 3). Water had the majority of balancing, digging, getting wet,
throwing, splashing, sliding and falling. It also included many instances of running,
Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning 2016.16:31-48.

climbing, jumping and jumping off. Finally, there were only two physical behavior
codes on rough surfaces.
In terms of emotional responses to physical challenges, overall the children showed
very high levels of either positive or neutral responses (see Table 4). Out of 835 total
physical behaviors at the river, only 11 were associated with negative emotional responses
(one from climbing, three from getting wet, seven from falling down; see Table 4). From
the creek, 3 out of 581 behaviors yielded a negative emotional response (one each for
getting wet, falling down and sliding; see Table 4). Considering that the children are in a
challenging, wild environment engaging in physical behavior at varying levels of risk, the
low number of negative emotional responses is remarkable.

Personal challenges
Personal challenges, or children’s responses to particularly difficult affordances such as
rushing water or a steep rock, are largely a function of the environment itself, the teachers’

Table 4. Children’s emotional reactions to behaviors.

River Creek

Neutral/ Neutral/
positive Negative Percentage positive Negative Percentage
Behavior total total positive total total positive

Swinging 1 0 100 46 0 100

Running 168 0 100 84 0 100
Hiding 21 0 100 2 0 100
Digging/scooping 31 0 100 19 0 100
Climbing 289 1 99.65 108 0 100
Jumping 1 0 100 30 0 100
Jumping off 20 0 100 73 0 100
Getting wet 53 3 94.64 23 1 95.83
Falling down 164 7 95.91 92 1 98.92
Throwing 23 0 100 33 0 100
Splashing 8 0 100 26 0 100
Sliding 27 0 100 9 1 90
Moving heavy objects 7 0 100 10 0 100
Building 0 0 N/A 6 0 100
Balancing 11 0 100 17 0 100
 42 C. McClain and M. Vandermaas-Peeler

practices in allowing children freedom of exploration and the response of peers. Given the
highly social context of personal challenges, the peer collaborative aspect was particularly
important, whether that was direct (e.g. taking on a challenge with a friend) or indirect
(e.g. trying something because you saw a peer doing it).
The river elicited more challenges than the creek (21 and 6 respectively), and therefore
was an ideal environmental for helping children connect with nature as they overcame
obstacles, expanded their sense of self and felt more competent. At the river, the majority
of personal challenges occurred on climbable or water affordances. The creek was
associated with personal challenges on water, flat and climbable affordances. The case
studies of each child illustrate the individual responses to environmental challenges and
the social context in which they occurred.
Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning 2016.16:31-48.

Child 1: Michael
The first case-study child, Michael, was older and highly comfortable in the outdoor environ-
ment. He had six total personal challenges, but only in the first half of the year (five at the
river). His challenges had more risk and difficulty as compared with the other children. For
example, Michael would climb a tree but make it more challenging by going higher than his
peers. He tended to move quickly into challenges with a sense of excitement and opportunity,
which was very different from other children who experienced a high degree of nervousness
and fear in challenging situations. Because of his willingness to challenge himself, Michael
also saw himself as competent. Part of his excitement stemmed from making personal
challenges social (e.g. wading through deep water with a peer so they could hold onto one
another or teaching a friend how he climbed a tree and then helping him try too).
The most notable aspect of Michael’s challenges was how he frequently continued
pretending during them or took on the challenge to enable a certain aspect of pretend play.
Michael ventured 50 feet into the river (almost to the other bank) through deep, quickly
moving water and played a game with peers the whole time. He integrated problem-
solving: finding a way to carry a heavy stick with him as he climbed up a steep rock.
Although he struggled and kept slipping, his perseverance led to eventual success, and he
resumed his pretend play game immediately upon reaching the top of the rock (the stick
served as the fireman’s hose).
Michael had limited teacher involvement, encouragement and awareness around
challenges. He did not need much (if any) teacher support. The most notable instance
of teacher involvement came when Lisa dropped a water bottle off a rock and asked
Michael to retrieve it. It was a hard climbing rock, and her request demonstrated her
confidence in his abilities.

Child 2: Daniel
Daniel was the child with the highest frequency of personal challenges (14 at the river, 4
at the creek). He struggled greatly at the beginning of the school year, particularly in
comparison with his same-age peers. He had three times as many personal challenges as
Michael, and this was the defining feature of his experience at the river: his difficulties,
his development of coping strategies and his progress over the course of the year.
Most of Daniel’s challenges were low or average risk, and other children his age did not
have trouble with the same experiences. For example, on the first day at the river, Daniel
spent a considerable amount of time trying to find the courage to cross from the bank to a
rock in the water over a one-foot gap. His peers jumped from the bank to the rock, but
 Natural outdoor environments 43

Daniel got on his hands and knees and tried to reach out to the rock. Eventually, after the
teacher suggested it, Daniel asked for a friend to come back and hold out a hand for him.
Daniel tended to feel nervous during a physical challenge (e.g. saying ‘I cannot quite
reach’ in a shaky voice) but outwardly celebrated when he figured out a strategy or
succeeded. He disliked getting wet and carefully avoided situations that had this potential.
He remained acutely aware of safety in the more intense physical environment of the river
(and the creek to a lesser extent) in comparison with the school’s playground or garden.
Because Daniel was so consumed by his challenges, his engagement could be limited (e.g.
less pretend play than when he was on the playground). This limited engagement also
meant his challenges tended to be individual, which contrasted with Michael’s desire to
collaborate on challenges.
The teachers worked with Daniel over time to increase his strategic use of positive
and encouraging self-talk. As his verbalization and physical strategies developed,
Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning 2016.16:31-48.

Daniel was better able to navigate challenges by himself and then to help others
with their own obstacles (e.g. sharing a strategy). His primary tool was verbalization,
where he talked to himself throughout his entire challenge (e.g. describing the envir-
onment, stating his feelings, brainstorming ideas, giving himself encouraging self-
talk).
Daniel’s secondary strategy, one that the two teachers encouraged and helped him
develop, was to keep his body low and use four touch points (both hands and both
feet) at all times to feel more secure. Because Daniel was often on all fours, he moved
more slowly than other children, but he also far exceeded their kinesthetic awareness.
After completing a challenge, Daniel was able to detail the steps he took to get from
point A to point B. This awareness also meant that while Daniel was in the middle of
a challenge, it was all-consuming for him and he was unable to engage in pretend
play.
A key factor in the degree to which Daniel engaged with personal challenges was his
peers. Social comparison of his peers’ abilities was particularly acute for Daniel given that
they were his age (or a year younger). Daniel pushed himself further once he saw what
others were doing. For example, although he disliked getting wet, once he saw others
splashing through the deep water at the river, he contemplated joining, wavered for a few
minutes and finally went along with it. He would not have played in chest deep water
without his peers creating an environment that made this the norm.
Over the course of the year, Daniel made significant progress in his competency with
personal challenges, moving from struggling more than his peers to having challenges similar
to them (although still with his signature style of vocalization and slower physical movement).
His change over time was exemplified by the gap between the bank and a rock in the river that
he worked through the first day. On the fourth day, he did it again, still slowly, but without
child or teacher help. On his second-to-last day (day 15) he faced the same challenge, doing it
all by himself and vocalizing his process throughout (e.g. ‘I put this foot there, then turn
around’). While he still remained nervous, he was much less nervous than before.

Child 3: Sophie
Sophie’s personal challenges showed what was expected of a young child who was having
her first experiences in these environments (two at the river, one at the creek). During her
first time at the river, she only made it halfway up a rock that other children scale easily,
and she got stuck coming back down. She was more nervous about climbing and
 44 C. McClain and M. Vandermaas-Peeler

sometimes pushed herself too far, beyond what she was able to do, because she was
following her peers. Later, Sophie moved across a series of flat rocks in the river. Michael
ran across those same rocks ahead of her, while Sophie crawled on her hands and knees.
She tried multiple times before she was able to cross a narrow log at the creek. In sharp
contrast to Daniel, Sophie was quiet during her challenges.
Sophie struggled in developmentally appropriate ways but continued to try and stick
with challenges. Peers were important in Sophie’s development because she sought
inclusion and the ability to mirror activities of her peers. Her challenges all came in the
first half of the school year, and she had moved into a leadership role with the younger
children by the spring.
Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning 2016.16:31-48.

Social behaviors
Even in a wild environment, a supportive social context was established. While outdoors,
children participated in active and complex pretend play and exhibited far more positive
than negative social behavior. Children rarely had negative emotional responses to
challenging experiences; their base state was happy, excited or neutral.
Children tended to respond positively to the challenges of both wild places, exhibiting
a variety of behaviors including self-awareness and collaboration. High levels of colla-
boration were evident through positive social behaviors (127 at the creek, 159 at the
river), particularly in comparison with negative social behavior (40 and 16 respectively).
The preschoolers put far more energy into social collaboration, inclusion and helping than
into competition and fighting despite—or perhaps because of—the challenges present in
the wild environments.
As an example, Michael was very social and a leader who sought opportunities to
include others and collaborate. He reminded his peers about rules (e.g. leaving shoes on at
the creek), thought about safety (e.g. checking that no one was in his way before he
jumped), taught others (e.g. how to climb a wooden structure) and helped (e.g. lending a
hand to Daniel). At the river, Michael also showed physical affection, holding hands or
kissing his friends on the cheek. He made sure his friends were safe and not climbing too
close to moving water. Michael modeled behavior, showing others how to drink water at
the river, and also invited everyone to play his games. His negative social behavior
occurred when he used his physical abilities for an advantage (e.g. running competitively
with Olivia, not making space for Daniel on a ladder, taking a ball away from Brian after
he ran faster to it or excluding Sophie from a pretend game when she moved too slowly
getting there).
As a second example, Daniel moved away from his self-focus during personal
challenges through positive social behavior. He had a strong desire for social interaction
and spoke frequently about his peers. He used his vocalization and physical strategies
developed through personal challenges to help others (e.g. warning them to watch out for
a hole he fell into). He also continued to advocate for himself in positive, socially
appropriate ways that showed he was sensitive to his peers’ feelings. He would ask for
more personal space when climbing or warn someone before he jumped. In one instance,
he discovered some seedpods that Olivia then decided she wanted. Daniel stated that
Olivia could have them when he was done (the rule at the school), but she began crying
and was very upset. For the next 20 minutes, Daniel sought solutions, finding new
seedpods to offer to Olivia. He stood his ground and asked for what he needed, but
also tried to share and participate.
 Natural outdoor environments 45

Connected to positive social behavior, pretend play and games enabled collaboration
and socioemotional development. Both contexts afforded high levels of pretend play (114
at the creek and 146 at the river with daily averages of 12.7 and 9.13 respectively). The
children engaged in many play themes, some that carried over from school (family,
animals) and others that fit more closely with the outdoor context (cooking, fishing,
natural disasters). While the pretend play at the river changed more between trips, there
was some consistency around the theme (cooking, fishing and the ‘germ game’ where the
‘bad guys’ have germs). The creek had the most consistent pretend play because the
boardwalk (called the ‘rocket ship’ by the children) is used almost every time for outer
space play. Games were less common (62 instances at the creek, 35 at the river) but were
another way in which children interacted with the environment and one another, creating a
structure (e.g. taking turns jumping into the creek) for social collaboration.
Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning 2016.16:31-48.

Discussion
Based on the theoretical premise that children actively learn by exploring their environ-
ments as part of a relational system (Chawla, 2007; Gibson, 1979), the purpose of the
present study was to examine preschoolers’ physical and socioemotional development in
the context of their interactions with various environmental affordances and their peers
over the course of one year in preschool. The findings of the quantitative and qualitative
analyses highlight the importance of varied and challenging environmental affordances for
children’s movement and play.
One goal of the research was to compare the types of physical behaviors that were
elicited by affordances in two natural environments, one semi-structured space connected
to the outdoor playground and another wilder space in a local state park. According to
Fjørtoft (2001) and others, there is a strong relationship between landscape structures and
the functions of play. Supporting prior research, both the creek and river settings encour-
aged a multitude of physical and play behaviors with similar types of affordances
including flat surfaces for running and hiding, rocks for climbing and jumping off, and
water for exploration and play (Fjørtoft, 2001; Heft, 1988; Sandseter, 2009). While the
two environments had similar affordances and encouraged many of the same behaviors,
the degree of risk was greater at the river, especially around climbing and jumping. The
results support Sandseter (2009), who found that higher levels of risk and few restrictions
of children’s movements provided numerous opportunities for children’s intense and
exhilarating exploration and play. Extending prior research, we also examined children’s
socioemotional responses to particularly challenging or risky environmental affordances
such as rushing water, slippery terrain and steep climbing rocks. The predominant
emotional state observed in both outdoor contexts was either positive or neutral, and
the number of negative responses was less than 2% of observed behaviors. At times the
mixture of ages and the rapid movement between affordances yielded a high number of
falls (Sandseter, 2009), but the children’s emotional responses to falling and other
personal challenges were overwhelmingly positive. The very few negative emotional
responses (fewer than 20 out of over 1400 physical behaviors observed in both contexts
throughout the year) were in response to falling down, getting wet and climbing chal-
lenges. Early childhood educators should be encouraged to provide a diversity of outdoor
contexts for play with varying degrees of risk in order to enhance children’s opportunities
for development not only in motor and play-related activities, but also in terms of their
personal growth in response to experiencing risk and overcoming challenges.
 46 C. McClain and M. Vandermaas-Peeler

This study was also designed to investigate the ways in which different children
respond to personal challenges with accumulated experience in the natural environments.
Personal challenges were experienced by many of the preschoolers, and the case study
provides insight into three children’s experiences over the course of the year in two
different environments. For Michael, an older child who was generally comfortable in
both natural environments and had more experience than the younger children, personal
challenges were a result of increased risk-taking (e.g. wading into rushing water) and
provided a context for collaboration with his peers. The higher degree of risk at the river
enabled Michael to engage in more complex physical and play behaviors. He embraced
increasing levels of challenge over the course of the year, and was able to incorporate
pretend play and social collaboration into his experiences without hesitation.
For Daniel, also an older child with experience but less confidence and self-assurance
in outdoor environments, the focus was largely internal; overcoming personal challenges
Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning 2016.16:31-48.

was an intense struggle accompanied by self-talk. Vygotsky’s (1962, 1978) theory of

verbal self-regulation states that a child’s private speech reflects the child’s potential for
cognitive self-direction to ‘plan, guide, and monitor [a] goal-directed activity’ (Manning,
White, & Daugherty, 1994, p. 193). Self-guiding speech is linked closely with cognitive
development and serves as scaffolding. Self-talk is a means through which children
organize, plan and control their behavior, fostering self-regulated learning of cognitive
skills (Manning et al., 1994; Schunk, 1986). Daniel’s self-talk thus enabled him to
navigate the environmental affordances and eventually to focus not only on himself but
also on his peers. Daniel noticed what his peers were doing and this social comparison
seemed to result in his desire to succeed at tasks that he initially perceived to be quite
difficult. In addition, the teachers worked with him throughout the year to develop other
strategies and coping mechanisms for his fears of getting wet and falling.
Sophie was the youngest child in the case study and social comparison was for her
also an essential feature of the social context in which she interacted with peers. She
pushed herself to do what the older and more experienced children were doing and,
although this initially caused her to struggle, after just a few visits to the wilder natural
environment, it was clear that she had developed confidence and was becoming a leader
among her peers.
Findings from the case study illustrate the importance of multiple, interacting social
contexts of development, including children’s experiences in natural environments as well
as their ongoing interactions with peers and teachers over time (Chawla, 2007; Stanley,
2011). The children in this study developed increasing confidence with accumulated
experience and moved from a focus on themselves and their own abilities to a broader
awareness of their peers through social collaborations. The observed patterns for each
child must be considered in relation to their age, levels of experience and degree of
comfort with risks encountered in the natural world. Teachers in early childhood settings
should be sensitive to individual differences and provide a combination of challenge and
support, giving each child ample opportunity to encounter varying degrees of risk during
outdoor play in natural environments. This is particularly important in sociocultural
contexts in which there are diminishing opportunities for unrestricted play outdoors
(Prince et al., 2013).
The small sample size and the environmental focus of the preschool limits the
generalizability of the findings. The children were provided with multiple opportunities
to spend time outdoors throughout each day in preschool, and the beliefs and practices of
these teachers do not represent the majority of preschools in the United States by any
means. Nonetheless, the findings may provide incentive for more teachers to take
 Natural outdoor environments 47

preschool children outside to relatively wild, natural environments and allow them to
explore, play and take risks on a regular basis over time when possible (Sandseter, 2012).
This research illuminates the importance of exploring multiple aspects of the social
context in which preschool children experience natural environments in order to under-
stand their initial responses as well as their developing skills over time (Chawla, 2007;
Bronfenbrenner, 1994). In this study, the teachers encouraged freedom of movement and
provided regular opportunities for children to interact with each other and with challen-
ging environmental affordances in two naturally provisioned, relatively wild spaces.
Observations of children’s motor activities, play and responses to challenging features
of the environment supported the importance of accumulated experience and social
interactions for the development of confidence in the face of risk, individual exploration
and positive social support and engagement with peers.
Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning 2016.16:31-48.

Acknowledgements
Thanks to those who participated in our research, both the school’s teachers and the families. This
research was based on Cara McClain’s undergraduate honors thesis.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This research was supported by Elon University’s Office of Undergraduate Research, the Lumen
Prize and the Honors Program.

Author biographies
Cara McClain, B.A., graduated from Elon University in May 2014 with a degree in Psychology and
minors in Environmental and Sustainability Studies and Spanish. As an Honors Fellow, she
completed a 3-year Honors thesis, conducting original research on how nature experiences impact
preschoolers’ psychological development and environmental awareness. To support this research,
she received Elon’s $15,000 Lumen Prize. Cara is currently an AmeriCorps member serving with
City Year in Boston, an organization dedicated to bridging the gap in high-poverty communities
to keep students in school and on track to graduate. Her passions are environmental education and
child development.
Maureen Vandermaas-Peeler is a Professor of Psychology and Director of the Center for Research
on Global Engagement at Elon University. Her scholarly interests include children's learning in
collaborative, authentic experiences; adult guidance of children's inquiry and discovery; socio-
cultural and global contexts of learning; and undergraduate research mentoring. She directed the
Honors Program at Elon University from 2008 to 2013, and is currently co-leading a research
seminar on Excellence in Mentoring Undergraduate Research with the Center for Engaged
Learning.

References
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite
(Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (Vol. 3, 2nd Ed). Oxford: Elsevier.
Chawla, L. (2007). Childhood experiences associated with care for the natural world: A theoretical
framework for empirical results. Children, Youth and Environments, 14, 144–170.
Cintrón-Moscoso, F. (2010). Cultivating youth proenvironmental development: A critical ecological
approach. Ecopsychology, 2, 33–40. doi:10.1089/eco.2009.0031
 48 C. McClain and M. Vandermaas-Peeler

Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. (1998). The hundred languages of children: The Reggio-Emilia
approach – advanced reflections. Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
Fjørtoft, I. (2001). The natural environment as a playground for children: The impact of outdoor
play activities in pre-primary school children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 29, 111–117.
doi:10.1023/A:1012576913074
Flick, U. (2006). Constant comparative method. In V. Jupp (Ed.), The Sage dictionary of social
research methods (pp. 37–38). London: Sage.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
Heft, H. (1988). Affordances of children’s environments: A functional approach to environmental
description. Children’s Environmental Quality, 5(3), 29–37.
Inan, H. Z., Trundle, K. C., & Kantor, R. (2010). Understanding natural sciences education in a
Reggio Emilia-inspired preschool. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 1186–1208.
Kernan, M. (2010). Outdoor affordances in early childhood education and care settings: Adults’ and
children’s perspectives. Children, Youth and Environments, 20, 152–177.
Louv, R. (2008). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Chapel
Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning 2016.16:31-48.

Hill, NC: Algonquin Books.

Manning, B., White, C. S., & Daugherty, M. (1994). Young children’s private speech as a precursor
to metacognitive strategy use during task engagement. Discourse Processes, 17, 191–211.
doi:10.1080/01638539409544866
Maynard, T., & Waters, J. (2007). Learning in the outdoor environment: A missed opportunity?
Early Years: An International Journal of Research and Development, 27, 255–265. doi:10.1080/
09575140701594400
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook. London: Sage.
Prince, H., Allin, L., Sandseter, E. B. H., & Ärkemalm-Hagsér, E. (2013). Outdoor play and learning
in early childhood from different cultural perspectives. Journal of Adventure Education &
Outdoor Learning, 13, 183–188. doi:10.1080/14729679.2013.813745
Sandseter, E. B. H. (2007). Categorizing risky play: How can we identify risk-taking in children’s
play? European Early Child Education Research Journal, 15, 237–252. doi:10.1080/
13502930701321733
Sandseter, E. B. H. (2009). Affordances for risky play in preschool: The importance of features in
the play environment. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36, 439–446. doi:10.1007/s10643-
009-0307-2
Sandseter, E. B. H. (2012). Restrictive safety or unsafe freedom? Norwegian ECEC practitioners’
perceptions and practices concerning children’s risky play. Child Care in Practice, 18, 83–101.
doi:10.1080/13575279.2011.621889
Schunk, D. H. (1986). Verbalization and children’s self-regulated learning. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 11, 347–369. doi:10.1016/0361-476X(86)90030-5
Stanley, E. (2011). The place of outdoor play in a school community: A case study of recess values.
Children, Youth and Environments, 21, 185–211.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.