Nonplay in Norwegian Early
Childhood Education andCare Institutions•
Rune Storli, May Liss Tobiassen,
and Ellen Beate Hansen Sandseter

The authors consider play to be critical and intrinsic to healthy humanlife and development, and they argue that children’s right to play should
be supported by the environment in which they live. Their study seeks tounderstand what children do when they appear not to play during free play
periods at early childhood education and care institutions. Their analysis of
nonplay activities produced five categories: conversations, practical tasks,
passive observation, wandering, and conflicts (or crying). These categories,
they believe, can help kindergarten teachers become aware of factors in thephysical environment that prevent children from playing and detect children
who fall outside the play community. Key words: affordances; child friendly
environment; early childhood education and care (ECEC); nonplay; play

Introduction

Article 31 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child(UNGA 1989) challenges us to understand play from the perspective of children.
Viewing play as a fundamental need and right of all children offers a powerfulconstruct that legitimizes and secures the place of play in the lives of young
children (Kernan 2007). Children’s play has been described as a form of daily
participation in the cultural, social, and physical environments of everyday life
(Meire 2007). As such, play is a critical and intrinsic part of healthy human lifeand development, and a child’s ability to exercise the right to play should be
supported by the environmental conditions in which that child lives.
A recent Norwegian study exploring children’s free play in early childhood education and care (ECEC) institutions demonstrated that there was asignificant and positive correlation between children’s play and their well-being
and involvement in play activities (Storli and Sandseter 2019). Children spent
two-thirds of their time in different kinds of play, both indoors and outdoors,
254

American Journal of Play, volume 14, number 3 © 2022 by The Strong
Contact Rune Storli at rus@dmmh.noNonplay in Norwegian Early Childhood Education

during their free play time in ECEC. However, Sandseter and Storli’s study also
demonstrated that almost one-third of the activity in the prime time for free play
did not fit the categories of play (functional, constructive, and symbolic play)
and was therefore registered as nonplay, which was shown to be significantly
and negatively correlated with both well-being and involvement.

Play and the Play Environment in ECECThe Norwegian framework plan for the content and tasks of kindergartens(NMER 2017) emphasizes the importance of play for children’s development
and learning and states that play should have a prominent role in ECEC institutions. The plan acknowledges, then, that play is a key aspect in children’s lives
and in their daily lives in ECEC institutions.
Play is an activity that children carry out because they like doing it rather
than using it as a means to an end (Sutton-Smith 1997). From children’s perspectives, play is voluntary and self-controlled, fun, active, spontaneous, free,unlimited, natural, and self-initiated (Eberle 2014; Wiltz and Fein 2006) and, assuch, is intrinsically motivated. Play promotes learning, including learning skills
that are important for adulthood (Bjorklund and Pellegrini 2002; Pellegrini andSmith 1998). Play and learning can be seen as inseparable dimensions in preschool practice that stimulate each other (Pramling Samuelsson and Johansson
2006). Environments that provide children with meaningful contexts for play,learning, and a diversity of choices and possibilities for following their interest
are those in which children learn best (Hirsh-Pasek, Golinkoff, and Eyer 2003).
Lillemyr (2007) described the motivation to play as a form of driving force,a desire to feel competent and motivated by the joy and mastery of the play. A
child’s play is meaningful, and children have the opportunity to try out reality
when playing. Free play occurs when children can choose what they want to do,
how they want to do it, and when to stop or try something else. The term “freeplay” is often used to distinguish such play from organized recreation and learning activities, and characteristics of free play such as self-control, uncertainty,
flexibility, novelty, and nonproductivity produce a high degree of pleasure andinvolvement and, simultaneously, the incentive to continue to play.
The Norwegian Framework Plan for the Contents and Tasks of Kindergartens (NMER 2017) emphasizes that children should be included in eventsin which they can engage in physical activity, play, and social interaction andexperience motivation and achievement according to their abilities. In Norway,

255

256

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

children’s right to free play, during which they can choose what to play, withwhom, and where is regarded as an important element of cultural content.
The theory of affordances (Gibson 1979) concerns humans’ functional
perception of the environment and how this perception must be understood as
a complex interaction between psychological and environmental factors. In thisway, this theory represents a dynamic framework for considering individuals’
perceptions of the environment in general, stating that the physical, social, andcultural environment in which individuals live affords them different actions andbehaviors (Kyttä 2004; Waters 2017). Affordance is relationally specified by theattributes of the environmental feature in question and by child characteristics.
The relational association between the environment and children’s play wasinvestigated by Miranda and her associates (Miranda et al. 2017), who claimed
that high-quality play environments provide various affordances related tospaces, equipment, and materials that encourage social interactions and different types of play. In discussing what characterizes a child friendly environment,
Kyttä (2004), in her empirical work, highlighted the positive cyclical interrelationship between children’s independent mobility and the actualization of affordances. The less culturally and socially constrained the children are to explore
and play freely, the more likely they will actualize new affordances in their surroundings. Actualized affordances will in turn motivate children’s exploration,play, and learning. A Norwegian study by Bjørnestad and Os (2018) showed thatsome ECEC institutions have few toys and that many of them are inaccessible tochildren, resulting in children needing help locating the toys. Nordin-Hultman
and her colleagues (Nordin-Hultman et al. 2004) note that access to material
that children can choose from promotes free play, as well as children’s ability tocontribute more strongly to their own everyday lives. Easy access to toys andmaterials makes it more likely that children’s play continues over time.

Previous Research on Children’s Nonplay Behavior
Several studies exist about children’s free play and about categorizing play behavior among children (Dyment and O’Connell 2013; Garner and Bergen 2006;
Kleppe, Melhuish, and Sandseter 2017; Storli and Sandseter 2019). Nevertheless,as far as we know, there are few studies about what children do when they are
not playing in an environment supportive of free play. However, Rubin (2001)
examined nonplay among a sample of children based on the Play Observation

Nonplay in Norwegian Early Childhood Education

Scale (POS). The POS guides observations to be made about the structural components of play as they are nested in the social participation context during free
play. The POS is particularly influential because it allows detailed assessments ofchildren’s nonsocial play. Based on the POS, Coplan and his associates (Coplan
et. al 1994) identified three distinct subtypes of nonsocial play behaviors: reticent
behavior (e.g., onlooking or unoccupied behaviors), solitary-passive behavior(e.g., quiescent exploration of objects or constructive activity while being alone),
and, finally, solitary active behavior (e.g., repeated functional activities or solitary
dramatizing). Therefore, the POS directs the assessment of several other nonplay
behaviors, including unoccupied behavior, onlooking, exploration, peer conversation, anxious behaviors, hovering, transitional behavior, rough-and-tumble
play, and aggression (Coplan, Rubin, and Findlay 2006).
Some of these might logically be something other than play, while others, for example, rough-and-tumble play, might be looked upon as a type of play
(Storli and Sandseter 2017). Additionally, although some researchers clearly
distinguish between play and exploration (Pellegrini and Gustafson 2005), others
see exploration as a precursor to play or as an integral part of play (Bjorklund
and Gardiner 2012; Olofsson 1993). In differentiating play from exploration,
Rubin, Fein, and Vandenberg (1983) stated that while play asks “what can I dowith this object or person,” exploration asks “what is this object/person and what
can it/he/she do.”Another relevant study about children’s nonplay behavior (Grady-Dominguez et al. 2019) introduced six categories of nonplay in investigating novel
interventions for promoting play on playgrounds in five Australian primaryschools for children with developmental disabilities. The six categories were:
aggression; sedentary; walking, jumping, or transitioning; eating; talking withothers (about nonplay-related matters); and observing.
In examining the impact of playground design on children’s play choices
and behaviors in preschool centers, Dyment and O’Connell (2013) recorded
the dominant type of play in diverse play spaces. The categories of play in thisstudy were functional play, constructive play, and symbolic play. In addition,
they recorded two categories in which the children were not engaged in play:self-focused or looking on and talking with another child.
While categories of children’s play are observable descriptions of what children are doing in general, categories of nonplay are contextual because they areobservable descriptions of what children are (not) doing in a supportive environment for play. In the same way that differing comprehensions of exploration

257

258

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

as a part of play or a precursor of play exist in the literature (e.g., Pelligrini andGustavsson [2005] versus Bjorklund and Gardiner [2012]), onlooking, observing, and transitioning have different interpretations. Some researchers focus
on the passive and even negative role of such behavior related to types of play
(Herrington and Brussoni 2015; Kyttä 2004), but others emphasize onlooking
and observing, for example, access strategies for gaining entry into ongoinginteractions (Corsaro 2003; Strandell 1994). Sutton-Smith (1997) thoroughly
discussed the ambiguity of play, and in his concluding remarks, he emphasizedthat play’s definitions must be broad rather than narrow, including passive or
vicarious forms as well as active participant forms.

Aim of the Study
As we mentioned in the introduction, we positioned this study within a larger
study that explored how research-based interventions of the physical environment could influence children’s play behaviors. Our aim in the present study
is to explore what children do when they do not play during free play periods
in ECEC, where they can choose for themselves what to do and with what andwhom. Finally, our aim is to suggest broad categories of nonplay. Since play ispositively associated with children’s involvement and well-being (Storli andSandseter 2019), we discuss this knowledge as it relates to child friendly environments that support free play in ECEC institutions.

Methodological Approach and Analysis
Our study formed part of the Competence for Developing Early Childhood
Education and Care (ECEC) Institutions’ Indoor and Outdoor Environments(EnCompetence) project, funded by the Research Council of Norway andapproved by the Norwegian Social Science Data Services. The project lasted
from 2017 to 2021 and was conducted in close collaboration with three ownersof ECEC institutions in Norway. The data collection involved systematic andrandomized video observations of children in indoor and outdoor environments
during free play, where free play implied that the children could decide what theywanted to do, where they wanted to be, and with whom they wanted to interact.

Nonplay in Norwegian Early Childhood Education

Participants
In this study, we selected the participating ECEC institutions from a pool oftwenty-two institutions suggested by two private ECEC corporations and one
municipality, all of which were partners in the project. Importantly, we selected
institutions that had at least twenty children (without special needs) aged three tofour years old who could be recruited as participants. The research group strategically selected eight ECEC institutions that represented a mix of size, urban andrural, building year, and organizational structure (departments, bases, zones, flexibility). For empirical (and practical) reasons, ten children (five girls and five boys,
totaling eighty children) were selected for observation (following parental andchild consent as required by Norwegian research ethics). These selection criteria
ensured that an equal number of boys and girls participated, as well as an equal
distribution between ECEC institutions. In one institution, one girl was replaced
by a boy due to difficulty recruiting enough girls. The total number of participants
was thirty-nine girls and forty-one boys between the ages of three and four years.
The Norwegian Framework Plan for Kindergarten (NMER 2017), whichapplies to all Norwegian ECEC institutions, states that staff shall design thephysical environment both outdoors and indoors so that all children are provided the opportunity to participate in play and that staff should organize space,time, and play equipment to inspire different kinds of play. All the participating
ECEC institutions in this study conforms to these requirements. The staff-childratio for the three- to six-year-olds (decided based on the norm in Norway) was
six children per staff member, and the group size in the sample of this study wasfifteen to twenty children. The Norwegian norm for the area of indoor environments for children in the relevant age group is four square meters per childand that for the outdoor environments is twenty-four square meters per child.
Although there was considerable variation between the participating ECEC institutions in this study, all the normative requirements met what can be describedas high-quality play environments as suggested by Miranda and her associates(Miranda et al. 2017).

Data collection
All observations were video recorded and conducted in accordance with a strict
observational protocol during a period of four weeks in October. This protocol

259

260

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

ensured a random sampling of observational sequences and that the data collection was carried out in the exact same way at each institution. The protocol
also instructed each institution to offer children opportunities for two hours of
free play indoors and two hours outdoors on days when the data were collected.
In Norwegian ECEC, children normally have at least two hours of both indoor
and outdoor free play (Moser and Martinsen 2010), and commonly some of theoutdoor play occurs outside the ECEC institution’s playground (such as in hikes
to forest areas). The protocol stipulated that the outdoor play took place within
the institutions’ playground and not on hikes to other play environments. Twochild participants were selected for each observational day (each child gave insitu consent), and the researchers focused on these two children for the wholeday. As a result, there were five days of structured observations for each of theparticipating institutions (a total of forty observation days).
During each observation day, we applied the following protocol: we decided
the starting point of video recording and the order of the children to be observed
before we began data collection. We did this to ensure that the researchers would
not influence which child or which situations got recorded. Each child wasobserved for twelve two-minute sequences, six indoors and six outdoors. The
protocol instructed researchers to carry out this observation as follows: Child
1 was recorded for two minutes, followed by a six-minute break to locate thenext child in the play area. Child 2 was recorded for two minutes, followed bya six-minute break to find the first child to record again. The project researcher
was responsible for following the protocol, watching the time, and writing fieldnotes to capture more nuances of each situation than the video would capture.
The fellow researcher was responsible for video recording. If the researchers
found a child in a situation that could not be filmed, such as toileting or changing clothes, they postponed the timetable for video recording accordingly. If thechild was in a situation that could not be filmed for more than ten minutes, theresearchers moved forward with the other child and then conducted the missing
observational sequences at the end of the timetable.
Altogether, the data material consisted of 950 two-minute sequences(approximately 1,900 minutes of video).

Initial Analysis
The background for the present exploration of nonplay was an analysis of chil-Nonplay in Norwegian Early Childhood Education

dren’s play initially conducted in the larger EnCompetence project. In all the 950
two-minutes sequences, the type of play occurring was coded second by second,
meaning that if a child switched from one type of play to another during the two
minutes, the code also shifted. Dyment and O’Connell’s (2013) play categories
were used in the coding process:• Functional play includes physical play activities, such as running,riding bikes, tumbling, climbing rocks, sliding down slopes, climbing trees, and playful skiing.
• Constructive play includes building play activities, such as building sand castles, creating huts and shelters, and playing with loose
items such as sticks, cones, and pebbles.
• Symbolic play includes imaginative play, such as social drama play
like family play, rescue play, or superhero play.
• Self-focused or looking on (no interaction with others, notengaged in play, such as day dreaming, empty staring, and watching activities).
• Talking (not engaged in active play but talking with another child).
In this project we noted the two latter categories—self-focused or looking
on and talking—as children not being engaged in play, and as such we collapsed
them into one category with the preliminary name nonplay.
The coding was conducted by one researcher, and then 10 percent of thesequences were randomly chosen for a second coding by another researcher tosecure the quality of the coding (for more information about this coding process,see Sandseter and Storli 2019).

Method for Further Analyzing andCategorizing Nonplay
The main body of data in the project consisted of 950 two-minute video observations. From these, 452 two-minute videos contained at least one period of
nonplay. For the purpose of this study, these 452 videos, including nonplay
videos, which accounted for approximately half of the data material, were further
analyzed to explore what children actually did in these sequences and how this
could be categorized. Video observations provide an opportunity for both quali-

261

262

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYtative and quantitative analyses. In this study, we chose a qualitative approach in
exploring the material, aiming to develop robust subcategories of nonplay. We
subsequently used these categories for a qualitative, second-by-second analysisof the material, in which we coded all the video observations based on the newnonplay categories. This allowed us to describe the qualitative fundament foreach of the different categories we identified and to quantitatively determine
how much time each subcategory of nonplay represented in the underlying
data. The process of analysis and the development of nonplay categories was
executed in four phases based on an inductive approach, in which we moved
from the particular to the general, from specific descriptions of what happened
to categories that could help further analyze the data (Marvasti 2014).
In phase 1, we analyzed all 452 video observations using a qualitative
exploratory coding process. In this phase, we viewed each observation and wrote
down descriptions and characteristics of what the children did when engaging inwhat had already been coded as nonplay. Three researchers performed this coding, each for one-third of the total material. In addition, we created preliminary
codes close to the data (Johanessen, Rafoss, and Rasmussen 2018) directly basedon what emerged from the observations. The preliminary codes included, forinstance, children just watching other children playing or just looking aroundfor something to do, children and practitioners talking about things other thanplay-related themes, or children engaging in practical activities such as changing
mittens or finding water to drink.
In phase 2, we reviewed all notes and suggestions for codes and discussed
them in a workshop among the three researchers. The purpose of phase 2 wasto determine what characterized the nonplay situations and whether there weresimilarities or differences among the three researchers’ suggestions for codes.
In the process of compiling the codes into overarching, robust subcategories,
we identified nine preliminary subcategories of nonplay. We then developed
descriptions of the main characteristics of each of the categories and how thiswas represented in the data material.
In phase 3, our focus was to analyze quantitatively the video observations
that contained nonplay, using the nine categories identified in phase 2. This was
performed in the Observer XT analysis program, in which we coded the datamaterial for nonplay categories second by second. Initially, phase 3 was carried out by one researcher. Subsequently, 10 percent of the video observations
were randomly selected and controlled by an independent assessor to heighten
the reliability of the coding. Similar to the coding of play in the initial analy-

Nonplay in Norwegian Early Childhood Educationsis, interrater calculations for nonplay were not conducted. The coding of the
independent assessor resulted in discussions about how specific observations
should be interpreted as nonplay or not. These discussions resulted in a unified
understanding of the content of nonplay and in minor revisions to the initialcoding. The data from Observer XT were imported into the statistical program
Stata MP 15.1, where we performed quantitative analyses of the occurrence ofeach of the subcategories of nonplay.
In phase 4, the nine preliminary subcategories of nonplay were interpreted
in light of play theories and earlier research. This process resulted in a reductionof nonplay categories from nine to five. In the following section, we present anddiscuss the nine preliminary subcategories of nonplay and how and why weconclude this study with five nonplay categories.

Findings and Discussion
We present a description of the nine preliminary nonplay categories and theoccurrences in time (percentages of total nonplay observations) of each of them.
Some will also be exemplified with descriptions of children’s behavior and dialogues in the data material and further discussed in an ECEC context.
First, following the quantitative analysis of the nonplay data material, theresults (figure 1) show that the prevalence of the nine categories differed widely.
One category represented 23 percent of the material, and one category represented only 2 percent of the material.
The first two categories represented some kind of conversation for 37 percent of the nonplay behavior registered in this study. Dyment and O’Connell(2013) also included a category of talking in their play categories framework.
They described their talking category as conversations between children who
are not engaged in active play. In our material, we chose to divide talking or
conversations into two categories, discussed separately: child-child conversations
and child-adult conversations.
Conversation Child-Child
Conversations between children accounted for 19 percent of the nonplay material.
Verbal requests and conversations between children characterize this category. This
coincides with the definition by Dyment and O’Connell (2013) of their talking
category. These conversations were, however, not related to play in the manner263

Figure 1. Distribution of preliminary subcategories of nonplay in percentages of total
264

observation time.
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

Subcategories of nonplay

Percent

Conversation child–child19%

Conversation child–adult

18%

Practical tasks

7%

Exploration

2%

Onlooking behavior

8%

Passive observation

23%

Wandering

20%

Conflict/crying

3%

Sum

100%

Figure 1. Distribution of preliminary subcategories of nonplay in percentages of total
observation time.

that Grady-Dominguez and her associates (Grady-Dominguez et al. 2019) use
the term. Often, the children in our study talked about everyday events, agreed
about matters, and told each other about issues with which they were concerned.
Such conversations can be important for many aspects, including language
development, establishing friendships, and creating a sense of community by
being listened to by others (Gjems and Løkken 2011). An example of such a conversation took place between two girls who climbed onto a box in the outdoor
setting. The conversation concerned one visiting the other in the afternoon. They
agreed that they should stay together all day in kindergarten. Another example
involved two girls discussing how their rooms looked at home and how theyboth slept alone at night. They further talked about having a sleep-over. Some ofthese conversations primarily focused on who should spend time with whom,
without this being part of play or planning to play.

Nonplay in Norwegian Early Childhood Education

Conversation Child-Adult
In this category, we analyzed conversations between employees and children,which occurred in 18 percent of the time spent on nonplay behavior. Neither
Rubin (2001) nor Grady-Dominguez and her colleagues (Grady-Dominguez etal. 2019) distinguished whether a child talked to another child or to an adult,
but in our data material, we were able to record this difference.
The content of the conversations between children and adults was not
related to play and was often about everyday events or about what a child wanted.
Gjems (2008) pointed out how important conversations between children andemployees are for several aspects of children’s development, including language
skills. ECEC employees who are able to support children linguistically assist
them in their cognitive, linguistic, and social development (Coplan, Rubin,
and Findla 2006). An example of this type of conversation in which an adultdeepened children’s understanding and social competence occurred when an
employee, lying in a hammock, talked with four boys. One of the boys forgot
what he was about to say, after which the employee suggested that maybe it
would help if he thought about it. Then, one of the boys said, “We must do that
if we hit each other, too. Then, we also have to think about it.” The employee
elaborated: “Yes—then we have to think about what we have done, right?” Theconversation continued, focusing on what should not be done against others
and how it is important to think about whether you are about to hit somebody
or whether you have hurt someone.
This category includes all kinds of talk between children and adults.
Included are observations of adults who read to children or tell them stories
as well as staff who reprimand children or guide them in aspects that do not
involve play.

Practical Tasks
Children doing practical tasks accounted for 7 percent of the nonplay observations. We observed two prominent characteristics of practical tasks when thechildren spent time fetching toys or equipment they needed for play as opposed
to when they were eating, drinking, or getting dressed. In this category, it isimportant to distinguish between longer periods of such practical tasks and tasks
that were integrated into the play (for example, when children brought pots andpans from the toy chest to the table inside the doll’s nook).

265

266

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

Examples of this category included situations in which the children had tostop playing to retrieve materials both indoors and outdoors or in which they
had to ask for help to obtain toys that were inaccessible, resulting in their stopping play. In some of our observations, the children had to walk quite a distanceto gain access to toys and equipment, especially outdoors. The situations thatfall under practical tasks within nonplay are circumstances in which the playstops or practically has to start over.
In a child friendly environment, one in which children have free andeasy access to play materials as described by Kyttä (2004), Bjørnestad andOs (2018), and Nordin-Hultman (2004), it is more likely that children’s playcontinues over time. An example of this is to have several depots or carts oftoys that the children can easily access when playing outdoors. Indoors, it isimportant to organize material on shelves, making them visible and easily
accessible for children.

Exploration
In our qualitative analysis, we made some observations that involve exploration.
Exploration occurs when children test the properties of an object, trying to gain
information about and experience with the environment or to acquire an understanding of it (Pellegrini and Gustafson 2005). We coded exploration behavior
in 2 percent of the nonplay material. An example of exploration involves a rainy
day in the outdoor environment, where large raindrops hung on a plank on a
climbing frame: “A boy gathers raindrops with his hand before he ‘drinks’ them.
Then, he uses his tongue and licks the next plank but does not get as much, so
he goes back to collecting water by hand.”
Although some researchers clearly distinguish between play and exploration (Pellegrini and Gustfason 2005), others see exploration as a precursor toplay or an integral part of play (Bjorklund and Gardiner 2012). Olofsson (1993)
used the concept of exploratory play, in which children develop their curiosity
by examining and testing the properties of materials. As such, children explore
something in their environment to play with it. Much of the literature pertaining
to play in kindergarten considers exploration part of playing and learning. For
instance, the Norwegian framework plan for the content and tasks of kindergartens states that children should experience a stimulating environment that
supports their desire to play, explore, and master (NMER 2017).

Nonplay in Norwegian Early Childhood Education

Onlooking Behavior
This category included children who observed others with obvious commitment
and empathy and registered in 8 percent of the video observations of nonplay.
The criterion we used to define someone as an onlooker held that this childlooked at other children or employees with some interest. We could see from eye
movements and expressions that the observing children paid attention to what
they were watching. There was a great deal of mimicry in onlooker children’s
faces and eyes, which indicated that they were watching the activities of others
as well as what was happening in the situation they were watching. Their facial
expressions changed throughout the clip, and we saw that onlooker children
would mirror the facial expressions of the other children and staff they observed,
for example, smiling when the others smiled.
Sometimes they also moved nearer to the situation to get a closer look atwhat was happening or to show more active interest in it: “A girl throws a ballaround and is also very aware of another boy and a girl in the room. She sits
down by the wall and holds her own ball at rest as she looks at the others andwatches their activity. We see that her eyes follow the ball and the children.
When one of them loses the ball and it rolls in her direction, she picks it up andgives it to the boy. Afterwards, she gets up and walks closer to the boy playing
with the ball.”Another example involved a girl who observed one of the kindergarten
employees: “The girl looks at an employee who cuts the image of one of thechildren in the kindergarten from a picture. The picture is detailed, so the staff
member concentrates to cut carefully around all the details. The girl stares andopens her mouth as the details are cut out. She tilts her head to see better.”In this category, we also observed what can be perceived as taking a breakfrom playing. An example involved a situation in which several boys were playing with toy cars in a corner. One of the boys sat up and continued to sit while
watching the others through almost the entire video sequence before continuing
to play with his car.
What we refer to as onlooking coincides with the categories of onlooking and transition used by Rubin (2001), the observer category of GradyDominguez and her associates (Grady-Dominguez et al. 2019) and the reticent
behavior described by Coplan and his colleagues (Coplan et al. 1994). In ourstudy, onlooking behavior indicated that a child was paying close attention to
the activities of others but that he or she did not participate directly in the play.

267

268

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYAn observant child could also make comments to or laugh with the other children but not be involved in the activity itself. Onlooking behavior might also
be described as access strategies for gaining entry into ongoing interactions(Corsaro 2003). A child’s transition from observer to participant in play begins
by looking at others and their play, often staying in close proximity, tuning into
the activity, and signaling a desire to join in.
It is reasonable to suggest that onlooking behavior is sometimes closely
linked to play or perhaps even constitutes part of the play activity. In many cases,
observation of others can give the spectator a play-like experience, such as vicarious risk taking (Kleppe, Melhuish, and Sandseter 2017), or represent a breakfrom play or an attempt to become more involved in the play (Strandell 1994).

Passive Observation
In the passive observation category, we included situations in which the children
either apparently had no intention regarding what they were doing or had nointerest in what was going on around them. In our study, passive observation
was the largest category of nonplay behaviors, at 23 percent. Passive observation
characteristically involved children sitting, staring blankly into the air, often
physically passive with no or very little facial mimicry. Our interpretation ofthese situations held that these children were neither interested in nor aware ofanything happening around them.
In some of our observations in this category, children sat next to otherchildren who were playing without becoming involved or showing interest inwhat was happening around them. They were often completely silent, staring
unfocused into the air. We also saw some children sit inactive on a tricycle
without visible interaction with other children. Other times, we observed children sit in proximity to other children who were playing and seemingly show
no interest in the other children or what they were doing: “There are three boys
and three girls involved in the observation. One of the girls sits a little distanced
and looks at the others before she looks down at the asphalt. She is not actively
involved in the play; she does not get the ball during the entire clip and looks
down at the asphalt during the entire observation. The others fool around andlaugh next to her.”
While Rubin (2001) described situations such as unoccupied behavior,
wherein a child stares blankly into the air, Grady-Dominguez and her colleagues

Nonplay in Norwegian Early Childhood Education(Grady-Dominguez et al. 2019) would more likely have described a child doing
nothing as engaged in sedentary behavior. Coplan and his associates (Coplan
et al. 1994) called their nonplay category “reticent behavior” (e.g., onlooking or
unoccupied behavior), and it would fit both into passive observation and, partly,
into our onlooking behavior category.
Dyment and O’Connell (2013) used a category called self-focused/watching. They describe this as an activity in which a child has no interaction withothers and is not engaged in play. The child is possibly daydreaming, staring
into the air, or watching others’ activities. This description is similar to our passive observation category, except that viewing other individuals’ activities in aninterested and engaged manner belongs to the onlooking behavior category in
our study.
However, it is important to make clear that observations categorized as
passive observation are based on the researchers’ interpretations of the children’s
behavior. Although we tried carefully to evaluate each situation and the multitude of children’s expressions, we cannot entirely dismiss the probability thatthe children had meaningful thoughts or reflections we were unable to capture
through our observations.

WanderingChildren walking around, often alone, looking for something to do or someone
to play with made up 20 percent of the video sequences pertaining to nonplay. Rubin (2001) categorized this as part of unoccupied behavior or hovering,which is quite similar to what Herrington and Brussoni (2015) called channel
surfing. This term covers children’s restlessness and bored wandering about insearch of something to do because they ostensibly could not find someone orsomething that seemed to engage them. Channel surfing can also include shortattempts of exploration and play without becoming involved. In our analysis,
we also recognized situations in which other children rejected the wanderers
from participating in play or in which their invitation to play was not accepted:
A boy runs around outdoors. He stops for a short while when he gets to an
employee and two other children, a girl and a boy. The girl stands by a sandbox. The observed child walks over and lifts the lid to the box. The girl justmoves to the side. He tries to talk to her: “I’m Captain Sabeltann,” he says, but
she does not respond and walks away. The boy follows her and tries to push

269

270

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYor catch her. She just ignores him and goes in a different direction. Finally,
the boy sits down on a tricycle and looks down on the ground.

We also observed an example of wandering during which a child tried tomake contact with a staff member without any visible interaction developing
between them: “A girl walks around in the outdoor area. She speeds up a bit
before walking slowly again. An employee emerges, and the girl runs over tohim. She tries to take him by hand, but he does not respond and walks awaywith another child. The girl walks around in the area alone.”From the perspective of the theory of affordances (Gibson 1979), wandering as a category of nonplay can be interpreted in different ways. Affordances
theory considers individual perceptions of the environment, and it states that thephysical, social, and cultural environment affords individuals different actions
and behaviors. For the ECEC, the purpose of the environment is to facilitate andsupport children’s development, play, and learning. The Norwegian framework
for the content and tasks of kindergartens (NMER 2017) states that play should
be a key focus in ECEC and that staff should promote an inclusive environment in which all children can participate and experience the joy of playing. In
nonplay, generally, children’s wandering can be interpreted both positively andnegatively. Children’s exploration and search for someone or something playable(e.g., social and physical environment affordances) will always be a natural partof daily life in ECEC, given children’s inherent desire for play (Lillemyr 2007).
Nevertheless, as described in our observations, wandering has many negative
effects of which we should be aware. Herrington and Brussoni (2015) argued thatchannel surfing behavior is a consequence of an unstimulating play environment
resulting in boredom. Play environments that provide various affordances related
to play equipment, materials, and spaces encouraging social interactions anddifferent types of play are defined as high-quality, child friendly environments
and should not include too much wandering behavior among children (Kyttä
2004; Miranda et al. 2017).

Conflict and Crying
Three percent of the video observations in the nonplay material contained conflicts and crying. In this category, we observed that children who quarrelled were
upset because they had hurt themselves or cried for other reasons.

Nonplay in Norwegian Early Childhood Education

Both Rubin (2001) and Grady-Dominguez and her associates (GradyDominguez et al. 2019) included a category they called aggression, which theydescribed as nonplayful, negative, and conflict-filled interactions, characterized
by discomfort, anger, fighting, punching, and pushing. Our conflict-and-crying
category is similar to these aggression categories, but we also included observations that did not necessarily involve aggression from one or more children.
Applicable behavior can also be seen in children who are alone and unhappy.

Outcomes: Five Categories of Nonplay
The aim of this study was to expand the knowledge of what children were doing
when they apparently were not playing during free play periods in ECEC andto suggest broad categories of nonplay. Sutton-Smith (1997) stated that play islike a language—a system of communication and expression, not in itself either
good or bad. To develop definitions of play, he emphasized that play definitions
must be broad rather than narrow, including passive or vicarious forms as wellas active participant forms. We argue that this is also relevant for understanding and defining children’s nonplay behavior in an environment supportive ofplay. Facilitating play is one of ECEC’s most important tasks (NMER 2017),
and expanded knowledge of what we here refer to as nonplay can be helpful indeveloping child friendly environments.
Initially, our analysis of nonplay activities in this study resulted in ninepreliminary categories (figure 1). As noted in the discussion of each of thesecategories, we propose that some of these categories are interpreted as precursors to play or as having elements that are difficult to distinguish from play. In
analyzing children’s explorative behavior, we argue that exploration is a precursor
to play or possibly intertwined in play behavior, sometimes as a playful activity
in which children are actualizing affordances in the environment (Kyttä 2004),
alone or together with their playmates. In this study, play and exploration go
hand in hand, and we suggest that exploration is play, or exploratory play, as
Olofsson (1993) labels it. Onlooking behavior is a category in which we seethat children become sensorily involved and interested in play activities in thesurrounding environment. Sometimes the observations also demonstrate that
onlookers intend to become part of play activities. Corsaro (2003) discussed
onlooking behavior as an access strategy in which children use encirclement
as a nonverbal entry to ongoing play. Corsaro also emphasized the importance

271

272

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

of observing access attempts within children’s social context and of not relying
on short, arbitrary time samples when studying children’s play. Onlooking for
Corsaro includes this kind of behavior as play. When defining exploration andonlooking behavior as play, we are left with five categories of nonplay.
First, conversations between child and child and conversations between
child and adult are combined into one category describing conversations.
Although the content of these conversations was not directly connected to play,
we argue that verbal communication forms an important part of everyday life
in ECEC institutions and that it is beneficial for many different reasons, such as
cognitive, linguistic, and social skill development (Coplan, Rubin, and Findlay
2006). In our effort to create broad and robust categories, we suggest communication as one category of nonplay, although we acknowledge that child-to-childand child-to-adult communication may have different developmental outcomesfor children.
Second, practical tasks essentially deal with two types of tasks: covering children’s basic needs, such as dressing and drinking and eating, and spending time
fetching play equipment, especially outdoors. Common to all practical tasks is theinterruptive effect they have on children’s play. Sometimes this effect can be positive in the sense of prolonging a play activity after the interruption (e.g., drinking),
but many times, the effect is negative because the play stops. If access to needed
play materials lies far from where the play occurs, children easily lose involvement
and interest should it be too time-consuming to fetch these materials. To minimize
the negative effect of practical tasks on play, ECEC institutions should strive todevelop child friendly environments that afford easy access to a multitude of playmaterials where the children normally prefer playing, both indoors and outdoors.
Third, passive observation, on the contrary, is described in this study as anactivity in which the child has no interaction with others, signalling no interestin the play activities of others in the environment. Since children’s participationin play is associated with subjective well-being (Storli and Sandseter 2019), it isimportant that ECEC practitioners be aware of this category of nonplay. Attentive ECEC practitioners might passively help involve children in play activities
or other activities that could be interesting for them.
Fourth, wandering, as a nonplay category, is complex, with differing interpretations in the literature. While Herrington and Brussoni (2015) identified
wandering behavior as channel surfing because, in an unstimulating environment, wandering can also contain elements of exploration or orientation as aprecursor of play (Bjorklund and Gardiner 2012). In the vocabulary of affordanceNonplay in Norwegian Early Childhood Education

theory (Kyttä 2004; Waters 2017), this means that in an unfamiliar environment,
or in play transitions, children need time to discover potential affordances forplay in the environment before later realizing them. Since wandering is considered to be a nonplay behavior that is negatively associated with children’swell-being and involvement in play (Storli and Sandseter 2019), it is importantfor ECEC employees to be aware of the negative aspects of this type of behavior.
And fifth, conflicts and crying constituted a very small part of the nonplay
material (3 percent) and was probably the most easily detected category in thisstudy of children’s nonplay behavior. We recognize conflicts and crying as anatural part of daily life in kindergarten, but at the same time, we emphasize itshould not occur often.
There are limitations to this study. We acknowledge that the qualitative and inductive development of the nonplay categories was based on the
researchers’ interpretations of the situations documented in video recordings.
Verbal utterances from the children in focus could support these interpretations, but we cannot be sure if we as observers fully captured or understood
what was going on. Particularly concerning the passive observation category,
we cannot guarantee that some of the sequences were situations in whichchildren could play with their thoughts and feel engaged rather than go any
further. Additionally, we have not included children’s views on what nonplay
constitutes and why they do not engage in play activities during periods oftime dedicated to free play. In future studies, it would be interesting to include
child interviews to shed light on this.
The starting point of the present study was to explore what children dowhen they choose not to engage in play during free play periods in ECEC,
where they can choose themselves what to do and with what and whom.
Although play is essential in ECEC’s institutional daily life, nonplay behavior can only be understood contextually within a child friendly environmentthat promotes play. Since play is such an important and essential activity forchildren, ECEC institutions must have environments that give children ample
opportunities to engage in play. Nevertheless, research shows that children in
ECEC do not always engage in play when they have the opportunity (Storli
and Sandseter 2019). To be able to identify nonplay in children’s activities,
the aim of this study was also to suggest broad categories of nonplay. These
categories could be useful in further research on children’s diverse activities,
as well as in studies reviewing the associations between nonplay and the physical, social, and cultural environments in which children live and spend time.

273

274

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYFor the ECEC profession, knowledge of the categories of nonplay can guide
ECEC teachers in their work to promote and support children’s play by moreeasily detecting children who fall outside the play community or become awareof constraints in the physical, cultural, and social environment that preventchildren from playing.

References
Bjorklund, David F., and Amy K. Gardiner. 2012. “Object Play and Tool Use: Developmental and Evolutionary Perspectives.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Developmentof Play, edited by Peter Natha and Anthony D. Pellegrini, 154–71. doi:10.1093/oxf
ordhb/9780195393002.013.0013.
Bjorklund, David F., and Anthony D. Pellegrini. 2002. Homo Ludens: The Importanceof Play.
Bjørnestad, Elisabeth, and Ellen Os. 2018. “Quality in Norwegian Childcare for Toddlers
Using ITERS-R.” European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 26:111–27.
Coplan, Robert J., Kenneth H. Rubin, and Leanne C. Findlay. 2006. “Social and Nonsocial
Play.” In Play from Birth to Twelve: Contexts, Perspectives, and Meanings. 2nd ed.,edited by Doris Pronin Fromberg and Doris Bergen, 75–86.
Coplan, Robert J., Kenneth H. Rubin, Nathan A. Fox, Susan D. Calkins, and Shannon
L. Stewart. 1994. “Being Alone, Playing Alone, and Acting Alone: Distinguishing among Reticence and Passive and Active Solitude in Young Children.” Child
Development 65:129–37.
Corsaro, William A. 2003. We’re Friends, Right?: Inside Kids’ Culture.
Dyment, Janet, and Timothy S. O’Connell. 2013. “The Impact of Playground Designon Play Choices and Behaviors of Pre-School Children.” Children’s Geographies
11:263–80. doi:10.1080/14733285.2013.812272.
Eberle, Scott G. 2014. “The Elements of Play: Toward a Philosophy and a Definition ofPlay.” American Journal of Play 6:214–33.
Garner, Barbara P., and Doris Bergen. 2006. “Play Development from Birth to Age Four.”In Play from Birth to Twelve: Contexts, Perspectives, and Meanings. 2nd ed., editedby Doris Pronin Fromberg and Doris Bergen, 3–12.
Gibson, James J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception.
Gjems, Liv. 2008. “Voksnes samtalestøtte i barnehagen.” Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift
92:364–75.
Gjems, Liv, and Gunvor Løkken. 2011. Barns læring om språk og gjennom språk: Samtaler i barnehagen.
Grady-Dominguez, Patricia, Anita Bundy, Jo Ragen, Shirley Wyver, Michelle Villeneuve,
Geraldine Naughton, Paul Tranter, Aaron Eakman, Susan Hepburn, and Dassia
Beetham. 2019. “An Observation-Based Instrument to Measure What Children
with Disabilities Do on the Playground: A Rasch Analysis.” International Journal

Nonplay in Norwegian Early Childhood Educationof Play 8:79–93. doi:10.1080/21594937.2019.1580340.
Herrington, Susan, and Mariana Brussoni. 2015. “Beyond Physical Activity: The Importance of Play and Nature-Based Play Spaces for Children’s Health and Development.” Current Obesity Reports 4:477–83. doi:10.1007/s13679-015-0179-2.
Hirsh-Pasek, Kathy, Roberta Michnick Golinkoff, and Diane Eyer. 2003. Einstein NeverUsed Flash Cards: How Our Children Really Learn—And Why They Need to Play
More and Memorize Less.
Johanessen, Lars Emil. 2018. Hvordan bruke teori? Nyttige verktøy i kvalitativ analyse.
Johanessen, Lars Emil, Tore Witsø Rafoss, and Erik Børve Rasmussen. 2018. Hvordan
bruke teori.
Kernan, Margaret. 2007. Play as a Context for Early Learning and Development: Executive Summary.
Kleppe, Rasmus, Edward Melhuish, and Ellen Beate Hansen Sandseter. 2017. “Identifying and Characterizing Risky Play in the Age One-to-Three Years.” European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 25:370–85. doi:10.1080/1350
293X.2017.1308163.
Kyttä, Marketta. 2004. “The Extent of Children’s Independent Mobility and the Numberof Actualized Affordances as Criteria for Child-Friendly Environments.” Journalof Environmental Psychology 24:179–98.
Lillemyr, Ole Fredrik. 2007. Motivasjon og selvforståelse: Hva ligger bak det vi gjør?
Marvasti, Amir B. 2014. “Analysing Observations.” In The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative
Data Analysis, edited by Uwe Flick, 354–67.
Meire, Johan. 2007. “Qualitative Research on Children’s Play: A Review of Recent Literature.” In Several Perspectives on Children’s Play: Scientific Reflections for Practitioners, edited by Tom Jambor and Jan van Gils, 29–78.
Miranda, Nekane, Inaki Larrea, Alexander Muela, and Alexander Barandiaran. 2017.
“Preschool Children’s Social Play and Involvement in the Outdoor Environment.”
Early Education and Development 28:525–40. doi:10.1080/10409289.2016.1250550.
Moser, Thomas, and Marianne T. Martinsen. 2010.“The Outdoor Environment in
Norwegian Kindergartens as Pedagogical Space for Toddlers’ Play, Learning, andDevelopment.” European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 18:457–71.
doi:10.1080/1350293x.2010.525931.
Nordin-Hultman, Elisabeth. 2004. Pedagogiske miljøer og barns subjektskaping.
Nordin-Hultman, E., Jansen, T. T., Solli, A., & Stockholms, u. (2004). Pedagogiske miljøerog barns subjektskaping. Oslo: Pedagogisk forum.
Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training (NMER). 2017. Framework Planfor the Kindergartens: Contents and Tasks. https://www.udir.no/globalassets/filer/barnehage/rammeplan/framework-plan-for-kindergartens2-2017.pdf.
Olofsson, Birgitta Knutsdotter. 1993. Lek for livet: Observasjoner og forskning om barns
lek.
Pellegrini, Anthony D., and Kathy Gustafson. 2005.“Boys’ and Girls’ Uses of Objects
for Exploration, Play, and Tools in Early Childhood.” In The Nature of Play: Great
Apes and Humans, edited by Anthony D. Pellegrini and Peter K. Smith, 113–35.

275

276

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

Pellegrini, Anthony D., Peter K. Smith. 1998. “Physical Activity Play: The Nature andFunction of a Neglected Aspect of Play.” Child Development 69:577–98.
Pramling Samuelsson, Ingrid, and Eva Johansson. 2006. “Play and Learning – Inseparable
Dimensions in Preschool Practice.” Early Child Development and Care 176:47–65.
doi:10.1080/0300443042000302654.
Rubin, Kenneth H. 2001. Play Observation Scale (POS).
Rubin, Kenneth H., Greta G. Fein, and Brian Vandenburg. 1983. “Play.” In Handbook ofChild Psychology, edited by Paul H. Mussen and E. Mavis Hetherington, 4: 693–774.
Storli, Rune, and Ellen Beate Hansen Sandseter. 2017. “Gender Matters: Male and Female
ECEC Practitioners’ Perceptions and Practices Regarding Children’s Roughand-Tumble Play (R&T).” European Early Childhood Education Research Journal
25:838–53. doi:10.1080/1350293X.2017.1380881.
———. 2019. “Children’s Play, Well-Being and Involvement: How Children Play Indoors
and Outdoors in Norwegian Early Childhood Education and Care Institutions.”
International Journal of Play 8:65–78.
Strandell, Harriet. 1994. Sociala mötesplatser för barn: adktivitetsprofiler och förhandlingskulturer på daghem.
Sutton-Smith, Brain. 1997. The Ambiguity of Play.
United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). 1989. Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Waters, Jane. 2017. “Affordance Theory in Outdoor Play.” In The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning, edited by Tim Waller, Eva Ärlemalm-Gagsér, Ellen Beate
Hansen Sandseter, Libby Lee-Hammond, Kristi Lekies, and Shirley Wyver, 40–54.
Wiltz, Nancy W., and Greta G. Fein. 2006. “Play as Children See It.” In Play from Birthto Twelve: Contexts, Perspectives, and Meanings. 2nd ed., edited by Doris Pronin
Fromberg and Doris Bergen, 127–39.