Children’s Experiences with
Outdoor, Physically Active Play in
After-School Programs•
Siv Lund, Kirsti Riiser, and Knut Løndal

The authors investigated the outdoor physical play of Norwegian first gradersin after-school programs using a study that viewed play from the children’s
perspective. The authors identified three themes of the physically active playthey observed—“playing with friends,” “no one decides,” and “I can do it.”
Their findings highlight the dynamic importance of such play, especiallyof child initiation in play and of playing with other children. The physicaloutdoor play fostered fun and playful interaction, leading both to improved
communication and movement capabilities. The authors discuss their findings in relation to Scott Eberle’s theoretical understanding of play, findingsthat indicate the complex conditions that support and extend children’s playin after-school programs and the need to recognize them. Key words: after
school programs; child’s perspective; physically active play; outdoor play

Introduction

According to the Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training(2021), children should have the time and the opportunity to participate in outdoor play daily while attending Norwegian after-school programs (ASPs). The
Norwegian national framework for ASPs claims that play engages and inspires
children and contributes to their holistic development and learning. The framework emphasizes that activities in ASPs should take the perspective of children
and highlights play as a central aspect of this plan.
Pellegrini and Smith (1998) point out that children’s play often has a vigorous physical component and that children’s physical activity can often be seen as
playful. They note that physically active play “may be social or solitary, but thedistinguishing behavior features are a playful context, combined with moderate
to vigorous physical activity, such that metabolic activity is well above resting
35
American Journal of Play, volume 15, number 1 © 2023 The Strong
Contact Siv Lund at sivlu@oslomet.no36

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

metabolic rate” (577). According to Smith (2009), physical play is relatively
neglected by educators. Although play is generally valued in early childhood
education, tensions continue concerning incorporating play into early childhood education curricula (Kuschner 2012). The Norwegian framework for ASPs
serves as an example of such tensions. The plan holds that ASPs should facilitateplay engaging children in activities and inspiring them toward activities. The
framework states that ASPs shall allow for all children to participate in outdoor,
physically active play during ASP time, preferably every day.
Theorists, regardless of their professional background, agree that play has acentral role in children’s lives (Sutton-Smith 2009). There seems to be extensive
agreement that play is a typical way of being for children and that it represents
an important cultural phenomenon among them (Lillemyr 2020). This is echoedby the United Nations’ (2013) Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 31that highlights “the right of the child to rest and leisure, to engage in play andrecreational activities appropriate to the age of the child and to participate freely
in cultural life and the arts” (n.p.). However, researchers have expressed concernthat institutionalization of children’s time can hamper their opportunities toparticipate in free, spontaneous play and leisure activities (Frost 2010; Løndal
2011; Smith 2005; Sundsdal and Øksnes 2015; Sutton-Smith 2008).
Although most theories about play emphasize its intrinsic value, there
seems to be an underlying belief among educators that children should develop
cognitive, social, and motor skills through play (Sutton-Smith 2009). According to Swedish researchers Ingrid Pramling Samuelsson and Niklas Pramling(2013), “free play as a contrast to teacher-led activity has long been an issue of
debate in early childhood education,” and they state that “there has been a battle
between play and learning” (11). One argument implies that teachers and otherprofessionals have important roles in children’s play to facilitate learning (see,for example, Wallerstedt and Pramling 2012). This perspective seems to resonate
well with recent curriculum reforms relevant to schools and kindergartens in
the Nordic countries (Øksnes and Sundsdal 2020; Pramling Samuelsson andPramling 2013).
This argument is complicated, however, by an important aspect identified
by Sutton-Smith (2009): play is an unpredictable phenomenon, difficult to control or to steer in particular directions. From Sutton-Smith’s point of view, playcannot be planned by adults to have specific goals that relate to what children
can achieve or learn—instead, the central aspect of play is that children experience joy and pleasure. In line with this notion of play, the United Nations’ (2013)

Children’s Experiences with Outdoor Play in After-School Programs

Convention on the Rights of the Child challenges us to understand play fromthe perspective of children. Childhood researchers also support this idea andemphasize that it is decisive to include children’s voices in research if we want
to gain in-depth knowledge of their play (Clark 2017; James 2007).
Until now, studies in extended education, such as ASPs, have primarily dealt
with activities that promote learning or with social and emotional development
through planned activities (Noam and Triggs 2017; Wendelborg et al. 2018).
However, we find some exceptions in the Nordic region, where in some studies ASP employees claim that they focus on children’s leisure and play and thatthey aim to assume the children’s perspective (Hjalmarsson 2013; Højlund 2002;
Pálsdóttir 2012). In a Norwegian study, Løndal (2010a) investigated third- andfourth-grade children’s experiences with physically active play during ASPs. The
results showed that children experience play with friends as the most importantpart of ASPs and that they most appreciate play chosen and determined withother children. Hogsnes (2016) investigated children’s experiences of the transition from kindergarten to school and ASPs and found that children’s shared playexperiences from kindergarten contributed as a bridge-building practice in thetransition to school. A study conducted in Iceland also focused on the transition
from kindergarten to school and aimed at exploring how first-grade children(age six years) recalled and reconstructed their kindergarten experiences (Einarsdottir 2011). The most memorable activities were generally outdoor play andrelationships with other children. In our review of the research, we found nostudies outside the Nordic region that focused on child-managed play in ASPs
as experienced by children.
The Norwegian ASP Context
In Norway ASPs are public programs outside normal school hours available tochildren in the first four years of school (six to ten years old; The Norwegian
Education Mirror 2019). ASPs are commonly located in the school area withaccess to the respective school’s equipment, facilities, and playgrounds. As manyas 82 percent of first graders (five to six years old) attend ASPs for ten to twenty
hours per week. Thus, the time spent in ASPs constitutes a significant portionof children’s overall time after school.
ASPs have received increased attention in Norway in recent years, leading
to a political debate about ASPs’ content and the management of after-school
activities. An educational debate has simultaneously developed in relation towhether play is an educational tool or a self-initiated and pleasurable activity

37

38

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

without goals and purposes (Løndal 2019; Øksnes 2008; Øksnes et al. 2014).
This discussion influenced the content of the national framework for ASPs,
which was implemented in 2021. The plan states that activities in ASPs should
be facilitated distinctly from a child’s perspective. Within the limits set in theframework, each individual ASP is free to choose content and working methods. However, employees are supposed to use a different approach for children’s
activities in ASPs than they do in school, with special emphasis on self-chosenplay and other child-centered activities. It is expected that children should havethe opportunity to play outdoors every day during ASP time (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 2021).
Previous research indicates that children in Norwegian ASPs, to a great
extent, are free to choose their activities during ASP time and that children
engage in a variety of playful activities indoors and outdoors (Løndal 2010a;
Lund and Løndal 2017; Løndal et al. 2020). A study conducted in fourteen
ASPs showed that the observed children on average spent 43 percent of the total
ASP time outdoors and that much of this time was characterized by physically
active play (Løndal et al. 2021). These findings fit well with the evaluation of areport about Norwegian ASPs: ASP managers and employees agreed their mostimportant responsibility is to ensure that children experience care and friendship (Wendelborg et al. 2018). Additionally, the ASP managers and employees
emphasized the importance of ASPs as an arena for child-managed play andcreative activities.
Aim of the StudyIn this study, we emphasize the youngest children’s perspective on outdoor, physically active play in ASPs. It is valuable for ASP employees, parents, politicians,
and other stakeholders to learn how children experience their play in ASPs. Suchknowledge will help employees better understand the nature of children’s playand how they can facilitate it during ASP time. The following research question
guided this study: “How do first graders experience their outdoor, physically
active play during after-school programs (ASPs)?”

Theoretical Perspective
Numerous attempts have been made to determine what play means and whatcharacterizes children’s play. The ambiguity of the concept makes it hard toChildren’s Experiences with Outdoor Play in After-School Programs

define. Brian Sutton-Smith (2009), a leading proponent of play, claimed, “We
all play occasionally, and we all know what playing feels like. But when it comesto making theoretical statements about what play is, we fall into silliness” (1).
Play cannot be planned by adults to have specific goals that relate to whatchildren achieve or learn—instead, the central aspect of play is that children
experience joy and pleasure. Theorists who describe the phenomenon seemto agree on some of its aspects: Play constitutes a typical way of being amongchildren; children play because they value the activity for its intrinsic meaning;
play leads to joy and engagement in children; and play is an important cultural
phenomenon (Lillemyr 2011). For children, play has a unique value for its own
sake—that is, play is a goal in itself.
We base our theoretical perspective on play in this article mainly on Eberle’s(2014) understanding of play as a dynamic and emergent process. According toHenricks (2015), Eberle’s theory is an important contribution that can loosen
the scholarly understanding of play or, at least, can free us from conceptualizing
play as a carefully directed, cognitively controlled pursuit. Eberle’s theories may
also help bridge the gap between play perceived only as a tool for learning or
only as a joyful activity that has its own values. In this way, the theory mightbring together the two sides in what Pramling Samuelsson and Pramling (2013)
called a battle between play and learning closer to each other. Additionally, we
find that the basic elements in Eberle’s ideas about play show an affinity for theexperiences of the player but simultaneous highlight the valuable capabilities
that might be fostered in play. Thus, we believe that these elements can serve
as a fruitful analytical framework for preserving and eliciting children’s voices.
Eberle argued for a play ethos that recognizes play benefits both evolution
and individual development. He presents a definition of play that considers its
dynamic character: “Play is an ancient, voluntary, ‘emergent’ process driven bypleasure that yet strengthens our muscles, instructs our social skills, tempers
and deepens our positive emotions, and enables a state of balance that leaves us
poised to play some more” (231).
Eberle presented six basic elements he considered essential for play andthat occur during play. They are anticipation, surprise, pleasure, understanding,strength, and poise. He urged us to look at these elements as moving images that
relate to concepts in aesthetics and philosophy. Play begins with the anticipationof those who play—they look forward to it and know when the opportunity forplay arises. This can occur when the school bell rings, signaling that it is time
for recess. The next element is surprise, which can be a reward but requires that

39

40

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYplayers are prepared to appreciate the surprise. The third element is pleasure,which is the hub of play. No one would play if it were not fun in some way. Thus,
because play involves pleasure, play immortalizes itself. The fourth element isunderstanding, which points to insight and sensitivity as the rewards of play,delivering emotional and intellectual bonuses. Play with others requires reciprocity with and sensitivity to others; they are prerequisites for play. The fifth element,
strength, flows from understanding and combines capability with confidence.
Eberle clarified that “much of the pleasure we derive from play is social in nature,and play strengthens our social skills” (226). The sixth and final element of play
is poise, which occurs when play adds understanding to strength and, finally, a
sense of balance. Thinking of balance in regard to the physical direction to theidea that play pleasurably enhances perception or awareness of the position andmovement of the body.
Eberle emphasized that his six elements of play are not static categories
but circumstance ranges that display themselves at different dimensions anddepth levels. Each element is divided into eight synonyms of varying character,which increase in intensity. To give one example, anticipation may first migratefrom interest to openness and then to readiness, expectation, curiosity, desire,exuberance, and wonderment.

Methodology
To collect examples of children’s experiences in outdoor play in Norwegian ASPs,
we conducted interviews while walking around with the children in their ASP
play area. The first author followed children during their outdoor, physically
active play throughout one ASP day. The children’s experiences were addressed
through “walk-along interviews,” which according to Kinney (2017) create
an interaction between the environment, the researcher, and the participant,encouraging exciting discussions and eliciting important information about
the children’s play without relying on the children having to remember previous play experiences. By involving multiple forms of communication, such as
speech, body language, facial expression, and play, we were able to refer to thismixed approach—combining interview and participant observation—in thesubsequent analysis. This study strove to empower the children and minimize thepower differential by allowing them to act as tour guides, guiding the researcher
through their ASP outdoor area—an environment that the children knew well.

Children’s Experiences with Outdoor Play in After-School Programs

Participating Children
The participants comprised a subgroup of children who were observed in a study
focused on the physically active play of first graders in seven ASPs (Riiser et al.
2017). Based on an expectation that the number of participating children, sizeof available area, and access to nature areas, might have an impact on children’s
physically active play, we chose ASPs that differed in size (small, medium, large,)
and location (urban, rural) for the main study. Two children from each of theseseven ASPs participated in this study. All ASPs had access to outdoor areas withvaried play equipment. The seven playgrounds were designed in different ways
adapted to the size and location of the area, but all playgrounds offer a combination of open spaces, climbing frames, swings and sand pits, places for ball games,and places with natural elements. The typical equipment available consists ofballs, hula hoops, jumping ropes, tricycles and scooters, and sandpit equipment.
For the present study, we needed to recruit children who were willing
and able to talk to us and to share their play experiences with us. To ensure
participation of children with such willingness and ability, we asked the ASP
leader to select two children (a boy and a girl). We specified that we wanted toinclude children who were able to recall experiences and articulate them verbally.
Altogether, fourteen children (age six years)—seven girls and seven boys—fromthe seven different participating ASPs were included.
Data Collection
We conducted interviews with one child at a time in the outdoor ASP play areas.
We asked the children semistructured interview questions that focused on theirexperiences with physically active play outdoors in ASPs: What do you like toplay outdoors in your ASP? Where do you like to play? How do you feel when
you are playing? Who do you like to play with? Who decides what to play? Whatdo you feel if you don’t manage the activity you want to perform? Each child
decided what he or she wanted to demonstrate and talk about in relation to playin his or her favorite outdoor ASP play areas. To inspire the children to talkabout their experiences of play outdoors, not other types of physical activities,
we chose to use the general word “play” in our question instead of “physically
active play.” We expected that the children would talk mostly about such play.
The interviewer explained that there were no right or wrong answers and thatthe children were the experts.
In line with Eide and Winger (2003), we conducted one-on-one interviews
to avoid individual children becoming dominant in a group conversation. Some-

41

42

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYtimes, the children answered questions in a manner that demonstrated theirskills and preferences for play. The interviews were audio recorded while walking,which the children were made aware of and had consented to beforehand. Eachinterview lasted fifteen to thirty minutes. During the interviews, the interviewer
made notes—for example, “full of energy, smiles, expresses self-confidence, runsfast”—that were recorded when a child was demonstrating instead of verballyanswering the questions.
Transcription and Analysis
After we finished all the interviews, the first author transcribed the audio files tosecure as many details relevant to the specific analysis as possible (Brinkmann
and Kvale 2015).
We used Malterud’s (2012) strategy, called “systematic text condensation,”for the qualitative analysis of the transcribed interviews. This method constitutes
a pragmatic approach, despite being inspired by phenomenological ideas, andconsists of four steps. In the first step, the three authors of this article read thetranscribed material several times to establish an overview of the collected data
and to look for preliminary themes associated with the experiences of children
with outdoor, physically active play in ASPs. After reading the full text from abird’s-eye perspective, each researcher wrote down their preliminary themes.
Then, we negotiated and discussed the themes for which disagreements arose(Malterud 2012).
In the second step, we systematically reviewed the transcripts line by line toidentify meaningful units, and we then marked these units with codes: friends,
play and activities, the adults, practice in a playful way (easy), well-being, andfun. We developed the codes by relating the preliminary themes to the researchquestion and identifying interesting aspects of the outdoor, physically active playthat should be investigated further.
In the third step, we organized and reduced the data to a decontextualized
selection of meaning units. The codes from the second step were honed andplaced in three thematic code groups: “playing with friends,” “no one decides,”and “I can do it.” The analysis followed an inductive process—beginning witha basic description, moving on to localization of meaningful units, and ending
with incorporation of a theoretical perspective. In the fourth step, we synthesized
the meaning units into consistent text in which the investigated phenomena
emerged (Malterud 2012).

Children’s Experiences with Outdoor Play in After-School Programs

TrustworthinessIn line with recommendations from Brinkmann and Kvale (2015), we were concerned with conducting a trustworthy study throughout the research process. We
exclusively discussed methodological questions, checked transcripts, asked questions about interpretations of interviewee utterances, and discussed theoreticalinterpretations to ensure that the findings reflected the children’s experiences.
We discussed the design of the study, the theoretical framework, and theanalysis at the beginning of the project, and we chose a research method thathighlights close interaction with the children. The credibility and reliability ofqualitative studies can be improved through investigator triangulation (Twining et al. 2017). We discussed the strategies for—and each of our experiences
with—data collection and analysis throughout the study. We critically discussed
the findings to explore other possible interpretations of the material that did notcorrespond to our preconceptions.
Ethical Considerations
Initially, we obtained formal consent from the administration of each participating ASP. The project was reviewed by the Norwegian Data Protection Official for
research, who concluded that it was in accordance with the Personal Data Act(reference number 46008). We informed the staff members of the participating
ASPs about the study and received informed consent from the parents of theparticipating children. Before conducting the interviews, we obtained oral consent from the participating children by asking them directly whether we wereallowed to interview them. In addition, for the sake of anonymity, the children
are referred to by fictitious names in the study.

Results
The following overarching themes appeared to be typical in the outdoor, physically active play experiences of first graders in ASPs: “playing with friends,” “noone decides,” and “I can do it.” At first glance the themes might appear as generalplay-related topics, not exclusively relevant for outdoor, physically active play.
It is worth noting that the results are condensed from interview conversations
circling around the children’s outdoor, physically active play, and that the themes
describe aspects from such play.

43

44

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

Playing with Friends
The children highlighted the opportunity to be with friends as a decisive factor
for whether or not they enjoyed ASPs. Almost all children expressed that they
enjoyed being in their ASPs and reasoned that this was so because they enjoyedplaying—especially being able to play with their friends. Outdoor, physically
active play was highly appreciated by the children, and they provided examples
of a variety of play activities. The most frequently mentioned activities wereclimbing trees and using monkey bars, cycling, doing gymnastics, swinging,jumping rope, playing tag games, playing soccer, and playing in the sandpit. A
typical example of this can be seen in Adam’s response to the question about
what he engages in during his ASP time.
R: Can you tell me a little bit about what it is like to be in your ASP?
Adam: It is fun!
R: Yes, why is it fun?
Adam: Mmm (thinking) . . . because I have a lot of friends there.
R: What do you usually do with your friends when you are in your ASP?
Boy: Drive the cars and scooters and play in the cable car up there (points
to show where it is).
R: Yes . . .
Adam: . . . Then I swing, and I climb—then I slide and, sometimes, I play inthe forest, and then . . .

The children had strong opinions about their ASP outdoor, physically active
play, which they were able to express clearly, as illustrated in the conversation
with Adam. The various activities he mentioned, including play with equipment
such as cars, scooters, and swings, are examples of physically active play andwere typical of the kinds of activities that the participating children referred to.
Adam expressed how important his ASP friends were to him—they were thereason that he experienced spending time in their ASPs as fun. The children who
appreciated having other children to play with were a dominant ASP feature.
However, there were exceptions that indicated that playing with friends
was not always the most important thing for children. One boy said that hesometimes preferred being alone—he enjoyed simply sitting still and playing
somewhere by himself (e.g., in the sandpit). If someone came and asked him if
he wanted to play, he would reply that he did not feel like playing with someone
right now.
The children had various reasons they considered friends to be importantin ASPs. They typically answered that it was important to have someone to play

Children’s Experiences with Outdoor Play in After-School Programswith and to have the opportunity to choose their own playmates. However,
several children mentioned that they did not always have the opportunity toplay with the children with whom they wanted to play and that they sometimes
experienced being excluded from play. These children had different strategies todeal with being banned from playing with others or having no one with whom
to play. One—Leo—said that he did not always like to be in his ASP because twoof his friends sometimes excluded him from their play. Leo did not understandwhy he was not allowed to play with them, and he said that he would get angry
and upset when this happened. He dealt with this by playing alone. On theother hand, Lisa’s strategy when excluded by others was to go to an area where
many children practiced handstands. When she engaged in handstands nearother children, she explained, she felt as if she was playing with someone. Somechildren used the “friend bench” as a strategy. A friend bench is designated forchildren to sit on when they have no one to play with or when they feel excluded
from play. Sitting on this bench makes other children aware of the fact that theirclassmates are alone or excluded, which allows them to assume the responsibilityof inviting their classmates to play with them.
This example illustrates the concerns experienced by one girl as she talks
about what it is like to be in her ASP.
R: Can you tell me a little bit about what it is like to be in your ASP?
Ida: I think it’s a little . . . I think it’s a little scary because there are otherchildren that I do not really know so well, so then it’s a little difficult tofind someone to play with.
R: I understand that. You are a first grader, so you have not been in this ASP
for a very long time?
Ida: No.
R: Have you made any friends since you started here?
Ida: Ehhhh . . . not really, but I have those I know from before, in kindergarten.
R: Are they the ones you play with?
Ida: Mmm (nodding her head).
R: Are they in the same class as you?
Ida: Yes.
R: …Can you tell me about what you usually do when you are in your ASP?
Ida: Sometimes I play around, then I might climb a bit.

Ida appeared to be the only child participating in our study who expressedsuch concerns. She said she thinks the experience is scary because there aremany children with whom she is not yet acquainted. She also appeared to be

45

46

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYinsecure when she described what she likes to do in her ASP. Ida demonstrated
her handstand skills and told the researcher she feels competent in gymnastic
activities. She had not experienced being banned from play, and if she had noone with whom to play, she would talk to the adults who worked at her ASP.
Only Luna emphasized how important friends were—not only in termsof having someone to play with but in relation to feeling safe—when she statedthat “friends are very important because it is very nice to play with them andthen I feel safe.”
No One Decides
All children agreed that they liked to decide what to play during their outdoor
ASP time and most said that they could decide what to play for themselves. The
children were especially engaged in making decisions about outdoor, physically
active play, describing the adults as being more in charge indoors. The following example proved a typical response when we asked the children who decides
ASP activities.
Adam: . . . Really—adults do not decide so much what we should do in our
ASP, but they do decide what we should do for arts and crafts.
R: In arts and crafts activities in your ASP?
Adam: I really think it’s just in arts and crafts that they decide what to do.
R: Yes. But when you are outdoors—who decides what you are going to do?
Adam: Ehh . . . (thinking) no one.
R: Can you decide?
Adam: Yes. Adults sometimes decide—when I take out something (small
equipment to play with) without having asked for permission, they saythat I really shouldn’t.

According to Adam, he could decide on his outdoor, physically active playwhile in ASPs, which is consistent with what most children in the study experienced. Several children answered “no one decides” when we asked about theiropportunities to decide what to play—an answer that seemed to imply that theadults did not decide and that the children agreed together what to play. Somechildren said that those who invented a game decided, but others said thateveryone who participated in the play decided. Some children noted that they
got to decide every other time, although others said that they negotiated.
The children were concerned that the process of who could or could not
decide about what to play should be fair. The following example shows how Anna
and her friend solved a disagreement about what they should play.

Children’s Experiences with Outdoor Play in After-School Programs

R: When you play in your ASP, who decides what to do?
Anna: We decide it ourselves. We agree . . .
R: Yes.
Anna: For example, if I want to play one thing and she wants to play something else—then we do something else that we both want to do.
R: If you still disagree, what do you do then?
Anna: Eh . . . then we can . . . then we take “a blue shoe went for a walk . . . ”(a chant), and the one who ends up with the shoe can decide.
R: Yes.
Anna: Then it will be fair.

The children participating in the study had different strategies for resolving
a disagreement fairly. Some children voted via a show of hands, while some said
that it was only fair if those who started the play got to decide. Other children
thought it was most fair if they could all decide by taking turns—deciding every
other time.
I Can Do It
Climbing was one activity that the majority of children appreciated. They spoke
about climbing trees, monkey bar, slides, and playhouses. The children said theymastered their play activities mostly at their ASPs. The typical phrases they used
were: “I can,” “Yes, I can do it,” and “I can do a lot.” Some children explained thatthey practiced movements, some that they learned new ones, and others thatthey improved on something they had already mastered.
Most children gave the impression they enjoyed challenges and soughtthem out. For instance, Simon liked to challenge himself on the swing. He had
good swing capabilities and said: “I really like to use the swing when I’m outdoors. I like to swing with my friend. We jump off at high speed and see whogoes the farthest. It’s a game. We have great speed when we jump off, and thebiggest dream is to jump far.”Simon showed great confidence in his high-speed swing abilities, knowing
when he had to jump off the swing because the swing “told him to.” According to
Simon, “the swing does like this” (Simon shows how the swing starts to shake),“then the swing tells me that the speed is big so you can jump now.” Simon
had a lot of experience with the swing at high speed, a challenging exercise heespecially enjoyed.
When we asked Mia what she was good at, she went to the monkey bars
and showed us her capabilities, releasing her arms and hanging by her legs from

47

48

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYthe frame. During the demonstration she smiled and expressed great joy andsatisfaction. She said she had learned to master this by herself but had practiced“a lot” before she had first dared to release her hands.
Another child—Lise —told us she liked to jump from roof to roof on thesmall playhouses as well as from one roof down into the sand. She said she thinks
the activity is a bit scary. The first time she did it, older children assisted her sothat she would dare to try.
R: When you jump between the playhouse roofs—can you tell me what thatis like?
Lise: It tickles in my body; it tickles a lot in my body when I jump.

She showed that she had abilities, as well as courage and joy, while playing on the playhouse roofs. When we asked her whether there are other places
where she likes to play, she clearly stated, “Yes,” and then she ran off to anotherpart of the outdoor area.
R: There’s a lot of exciting playground equipment here. Do you like all of it?
Lise: Yes! I like everything because I love gymnastics, swinging, climbing,and spinning on that carousel.

Lise demonstrated how she mastered the spider web by quickly climbing up,balancing, hanging upside down by her legs, getting up again, and sliding down
like a firefighter. Almost all the children immediately ran off to demonstrate theirskills and endeavors when asked about their outdoor play.
Several of the children explained that they practiced achieving the sameskills as their friends. Trine stated: “I practice all the time to be able to do something on the monkey bars like a friend of mine does. I think it looks so fun. I
can’t do it now, but I’ll practice learning.”
To acquire the same abilities as their friends, the children pushed the limits of what they could do or dared to do. Not mastering skills did not seem tostress them—on the contrary, they expressed that the process of practicing wassomething they thought fun and playful in itself. However, there were also somechildren who found it scary to try new activities. One girl said she was afraid tospin on the carousel because she had fallen off and injured herself several times
before. She said that she practiced not being scared so that she could eventuallyrehearse the activities she wanted to learn. One boy said he liked best activities
that were not so difficult. He liked the ones that were easy for him to accomplish.

Children’s Experiences with Outdoor Play in After-School Programs

Discussion
In this study, we explored how fourteen first graders attending Norwegian ASPs
experienced their outdoor, physically active play. The results show that first graders find it important to be able to choose their own playmates and to choose
what to play during outdoor, physically active play. The children also highlighted
challenging movements when playing and mastering movements at different
places on the playground. In this section, we discuss the findings in light ofprevious research and Eberle’s theoretical understanding of play.
Children as Important Agents in Outdoor, Physically Active PlayThe children who participated in this study appreciated having the opportunity
to determine what to play and with whom to do so during their outdoor ASP
time. This is consistent with the results of other studies (Løndal 2010b; Einarsdottir 2005) and is outlined as an important ASP aspect in the recently launchednational framework for Norwegian ASPs (Norwegian Directorate for Education
and Training 2021).
When children play without adult intervention in adult-free spaces, they
have the freedom to form their own play experiences as well as to decide what
they bring to the play. According to Sutton-Smith (2009), play is an unpredictable phenomenon difficult to control and guide. Play cannot be planned byadults to aim at specific goals children can achieve or learn as they engage in
it. Regardless, many adults seem to want to structure, direct, control, and set
outcomes for play (Canning 2007; Skar, Gundersen, and O’Brien 2016). In ageneral comment on Article 31 of the Convention on the Right of the Child, theUnited Nations (2013) warned against increasing the pressure on children tolearn. As a possible consequence of such pressure, children’s spontaneous play
becomes marginalized.
In the educational debate about whether play should be an educational toolor a self-initiated activity without goal and purpose (Greve and Løndal 2012;
Løndal 2019; Øksnes 2008; Øksnes et al. 2014), the Norwegian national framework specifies that ASPs should prioritize time and space for play and recognizethat play is a typical way of being among children that has an intrinsic and uniquevalue. Although ASPs and schools might envision complementary roles for playand learning, play should still be given priority in schools (Løndal 2019). ASPs
constitute an arena for outdoor, physically active play that lies between preschooland primary school. Consequently, such play can create continuity for children

49

50

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYand offer them meaningful experiences across (Hogsnes and Storli 2019). However, it is crucial that preschool, ASP, and primary school employees collaborate
and view children as “key players in transitions to school” (Einarsdottir 2013,69). Therefore, we argue for the importance of maintaining a child’s perspective
on issues that concern children’s outdoor, physically active play.
The theme “no one decides” shows the intuitive emergence of physically
active, outdoor play in ASPs. When children understand that no one decides,
it seems to mean for them that the adults in ASPs are less involved in choices
made in outdoor, physically active play, and that the children themselves makethe decisions. In their descriptions, the children nuanced the meaning of “noone decides” and emphasized that they reached agreement together—preferably on the basis that choices during outdoor, physically active play should
be fair. The children’s experiences may indicate that the intuitive negotiation
process that occurs during outdoor, physically active play contributes to fostering communication capabilities based on mutuality and sensitivity. This
corresponds neatly with Eberle’s element of understanding, which deepens
when children learn to play together, providing emotional and intellectual
bonuses. Eberle (2014) further pointed out that playing with others sharpens
children’s appreciation of fairness and requires mutuality and sensitivity tooccur simultaneously because they are prerequisites for play. Alvestad (2010)
also showed that children attending Norwegian kindergartens use pragmatic
strategies to come to an agreement when playing outdoors. In their negotiations, the children participating in the study manifested ingenuity, creativity,
enthusiasm, an urge for action, involvement, and activity; furthermore, they
proved solution oriented. We argue that it is important for children to havethe opportunity to experience many different contexts for outdoor, physically
active play in ASPs so that they can adapt their play to enable their own participation as well as that of their peers.
Our findings suggest that the most fun and enjoyable part of ASPs—fromthe children’s perspectives—was playing with their friends. All children highlighted the opportunity to be with friends as a decisive factor in whether they
enjoyed their ASP time. These findings agree substantially with previous researchon early childhood programs (Løndal 2010a). Playing and being together withfriends involve emotional dimensions, such as excitement and joy, and areimportant for children’s kindergarten and ASP experiences to be meaningful(Greve 2007; Løndal 2010a). Although some types of outdoor, physically active
play are solitary, most are social. Play seems to foster communication capabilities

Children’s Experiences with Outdoor Play in After-School Programsby challenging children to share, understand each other through direct interaction, and communicate ideas (Zosh et al. 2017). Eberle (2014) also pointed outthat much of the joy that comes from play is social, and that, consequently, playwith others strengthens children’s social capabilities. Important prerequisites forthis are good routines and a firm structure that allows children to experience asense of security and predictability. It is not the play activities themselves thatshould be predictable, but the opportunity to have time dedicated to self-initiatedplay with friends (Riiser et al. 2019). The Norwegian national framework statesthat ASPs must have routines that allow children the opportunity to be outdoors
every day. Children in ASPs should have access to equipment and areas that are
adapted to their age to promote their physically active play. According to Eberle(2014), play begins with anticipation, and the beginning of outdoor ASP time
can be viewed as “the keen moment that announces play’s arrival” (222).
In our study, children’s outdoor, physically active play seemed to runsmoothly and with few conflicts. However, several children mentioned that they
were not always allowed to play with the children with whom they wanted to play
and that they had experienced being excluded from play. Ida found it difficult tofind someone to play with and experienced being in an ASP as scary. Ida, who
was very good at gymnastics, could have used the same handstand strategy as
Lisa. Greve (2009) pointed out that observing the play of other children can bea way of gaining access to their play. Lisa put a lot of effort into being included.
The reason could be what Luna expressed so clearly: the importance of having
someone to play with because it is nice and feels safe. Again, play with friends
seems to promote communication. It allows children to exercise self-control andto develop what they already know, take turns, cooperate, and socialize with others (Glover 1999). According to Greve (2007, 2009), friendship is multifacetedand complex—it consists of much joy but often also of conflict. Friendship isabout participating in a relationship in which communication plays a central
role in the ability to participate (Greve 2009). Having friends is very importantfor children’s well-being, and friendships develop when children are doing something together (Greve 2014; Øksnes and Greve 2015).
Challenges and Capabilities of Outdoor, physically active Play
Overall, we found that the participating children were physically active during
their outdoor play in ASPs and that their play included different types of physical activity. These findings are in line with our previous ASP research (Løndal
2010c; Lund and Løndal 2017; Løndal et al. 2020; Riiser et al. 2019). Eberle

51

52

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY(2014) insisted that play promises fun and pointed out that children “would
not play if play were not, at least in some measure, fun” (224). Because play
involves pleasure, which Eberle stated is “the keystone or hub of play,” play also
immortalizes itself (223). When children in ASPs experience pleasure during
their outdoor, physically active play, this increases the probability that their playwill continue, as well as the positive emotions associated with playing.
Rasmussen (1996) argued that physically active play is fundamental andattractive to children. He pointed out that children are constantly moving—rarely standing still on their playgrounds—and are interested in exploring
the possibilities of their bodies. Lise demonstrated her movement capabilities and strength by quickly climbing up the spider web, balancing, hanging
upside down by her legs, getting up again, and sliding down like a firefighter.
According to Eberle (2014), such activities combine capabilities with confidence. Presumably, Lise experienced poise during her play, which resulted
when understanding was added to strength during play. Thus, understanding,strength, and poise are satisfactions in themselves, and they contribute to newlevels of comprehension and capability that help children do new kinds ofthings (Henricks 2015).
Several of the children liked to push their limits, practicing the acquisition of new movement abilities—already possessed by their friends—in a fun,playful manner. Some seemed to create play situations in which they were notalways completely sure of the outcome, resulting in tension associated withwhether they would manage to do it. This uncertainty resulted in sensations
described by Lise as “tickling in the body.” This corresponds well with Eberle’s(2014) observation that fun often comes from the unexpected—from surprise.
“Surprise is itself a reward, but it is a reward that we must first be prepared toappreciate” (223).
Previously published results from the project Active Play in ASP showedthat children’s physically active play contains barrier-breaking movements thatare beneficial for the development of motor competencies and the learning of
movements (Løndal et al. 2020). Children like to challenge themselves withmovements and positions that seem to be at the limit of their motor capabilities.
According to Sandseter (2013), children often test their limits and like to engage
in challenging and risky play. In this way, they create situations that expose themto tension, fear, and intense joy. Sutton-Smith (2008) also focused on primaryemotions in play, such as surprise, fear, and happiness. He claimed that these are
motivating factors for different types of play. Fear is, according to Sutton-Smith,Children’s Experiences with Outdoor Play in After-School Programs

an important motivator for risk taking. However, it is important to acknowledge
that children are different and that some children do not value risk taking. For
instance, one of the boys in this study said that he preferred activities that wereeasy for him to accomplish.
Each of Eberle’s (2014) six elements—anticipation, surprise, pleasure,understanding, strength, and poise—can be regulated up or down in accordancewith children’s outdoor, physically active play. At high speeds on the swings
and having great confidence and abilities, Simon likely experienced strengthand poise. In his case, strength came as a result of the fact that he masteredand controlled the swing at great speeds, while poise resulted from the qualityof his personal stability, vision, and resolve (Henricks 2015). For Simon, as theswing gained so much speed that it began to shake, anticipation seeped in—
anticipation and excitement (surprise) attached to when he would jump off theswing and how far he would go. Proprioceptive awareness delivered feedback
that allowed Simon to jump off the swing at the right moment—when he had
a sense of balance.
Strengths and Limitations
One important strength of this study is its data collection method—conversations with the children participating in the study during walk-along interviews
with them in their play areas. The children guided the researcher, decided where
and what they wanted to show, and when they wanted the researcher to engage
actively in their play. This made it possible to establish a good relationshipbetween the children and the researcher and facilitate a study with a clear child’s
perspective. We could have strengthened the study even further by spending
more time with the children over a longer period. In addition, triangulation ofdata through multiple data sources would have provided a more competitive
perspective on the children’s play.
We recruited the children interviewed from ASPs that participated in alarger research project. The ASPs were strategically sampled. We consider thisa strength in terms of the transferability of the results to different ASP contexts.
The ASP leaders selected the participating children based on their willingness
and expected ability to share play experiences with the researchers. This strategy
ensured that the interviewees had the ability to articulate experiences verbally.
The results may have been influenced by the lack of access to the experiences ofless verbal children, which may have been a weakness of the study.
Receiving feedback from informants on written transcripts increases the

53

54

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYtrustworthiness of a study. However, due to the young age of the participantsin this study, feedback was not provided by the children regarding the writtentranscriptions and analysis, which could also limit the trustworthiness of thestudy. To minimize the weaknesses based on these challenges, we conducted
regular discussions within the research group. The transcribed material was
read, categorized, and grouped by three researchers, and disagreements were
thoroughly discussed until agreement was reached. In relation to the analysis,
the themes generated based on the written transcripts were a result of interpretation; thus, it was not possible for our findings to avoid being shaped by the
researchers’ own understanding.

Concluding Remarks
Our study investigated Norwegian first graders’ experiences of outdoor, physically active play during ASP time. The children greatly appreciated having
someone to play with in ASPs, and they highlighted playing with friends as anespecially important aspect of outdoor, physically active play. The children foundit important to be able to choose their own playmates for physically active play,
but they also described experiences of not being chosen as playmates and whatstrategies they could use to find other friends with whom to play.
Great pleasure, excitement, and joy seemed to surface when the children
mastered different kinds of movements, such as at the swings and the spider
web, and they enjoyed demonstrating their strength and balance through play.
The children practiced barrier-breaking movements in a fun and playful manner and described how they practiced achieving the same capabilities that theirfriends possess during outdoor, physically active play. Thus, we argue that facilitation of outdoor, physically active play can contribute to fulfilling Norwegian
ASPs’ aim of providing a good framework for holistic development and learning(Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 2021). In a holistic view oflearning, we can assume that the development of motor competencies and thefostering of social communication can occur in children’s physically active play.
The experiences of children during physically active play can be understoodin relation to the six basic elements of play. (Eberle 2014) and to the children’s
emotional, physical, and intellectual dimensions.
What approach to children’s play ASP employees choose—and how they
understand play as a phenomenon—is very important because it influences

Children’s Experiences with Outdoor Play in After-School Programs

how they will ultimately facilitate children’s play. Our findings regarding children’s experiences of friendship and opportunities to choose during outdoor,
physically active play highlight the importance of child initiation related toplay in ASPs. Therefore, it is important to listen to children as experts andas important agents in their outdoor, physically active play. This agency is inaccordance with the child’s perspective highlighted in the Norwegian framework for ASPs.

References
Alvestad, Torgeir. 2010. “Preschool Relationships—Young Children as Competent Participants in Negotiations.” PhD Diss., Gothenburg University.
Brinkmann, Svend, and Steinar Kvale, eds. 2015. InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. 3rd ed.
Canning, Natalie. 2007. “Children’s Empowerment in Play.” European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 15:227–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/13502930701320966.
Clark, Alison. 2017. Listening to Young Children, Expanded Third Edition: A Guide toUnderstanding and Using the Mosaic Approach.
Eberle, Scott G. 2014. “The Elements of Play: Toward a Philosophy and a Definition ofPlay.” American Journal of Play 6:214–33.
Eide, Brit Johanne, and Nina Winger. 2003. Fra barns synsvinkel: intervju med barn—
metodiske og etiske refleksjoner [From children’s point of view: Interview withchildren—methodological and ethical reflection].
Einarsdottir, Johanna. 2005. “We Can Decide What to Play! Children’s Perception of
Quality in an Icelandic Playschool.” Early Education and Development 16:469–88.
		https://doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1604_7.
———. 2011. “Icelandic Children’s Early Education Transition Experiences.” Early Education and Development 22:737–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2011.597027.
———. 2013. “Transition from Preschool to Primary School in Iceland from the Perspectives of Children.” In International Perspectives on Transition to School: Reconceptualising Beliefs, Policy, and Practice, edited by Kay Margetts and Anna Kienig, 69–78.
Frost, Joe L. 2010. A History of Children’s Play and Play Environments: Toward a Contemporary Child-Saving Movement.
Glover, Anne. 1999. “The Role of Play in the Development and Learning.” In Child’s
Play: Revisiting Play in Early Childhood Settings, edited by Elizabeth Dau andElizabeth Jones, 5–19.
Greve, Anne. 2007. Vennskap mellom små barn i barnehagen [Friendship among small

55

56

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

children in kindergarten].
——— . 2009. “Friendships and Participation among Young Children in a Norwegian
Kindergarten.” In Participatory Learning in the Early Years: Research and Pedagogy,edited by Donna Berthelsen, Jo Brownlee, and Eva Johansson, 78–92.
——— . 2014. “Barns vennskap og jevnaldringsrelasjoner” [Children’s practice, friendship, and peer relationships]. In Utvikling, lek og læring i barnehagen: Forskningog praksis [Development, play, and learning in kindergarten: Research and practice], edited by Vibeke Glaser, Ingunn Størksen, and May Britt Drugli, 382–97.
Greve, Anne, and Knut Løndal. 2012. “Læring for lek i barnehage og skolefritidsordning”[Learning for play in early childhood education and care institutions]. Nordisk
barnehageforskning 5:1–14. https://doi.org/10.7577/nbf.447.
Henricks, Thomas S. 2015. “Play as Experience.” American Journal of Play 8:18–49.
Hjalmarsson, Maria. 2013. “Governance and Voluntariness for Children in Swedish
Leisure-Time Centres: Leisure-Time Teachers Interpreting Their Tasks and Everyday Practice.” International Journal for Research on Extended Education 1:86–95.
Hogsnes, Hilde Dehnæs. 2016. “Kontinuitet og diskontinuitet i overgangen fra barnehage
til skolefritidsordning og skole: En multimetodisk studie av pedagogers og SFOlederes prioriteringer av tiltak og barns erfaringer med kontinuitet og diskontinuitet” [Continuity and discontinuity in the transition from kindergarten to school
and after-school programs. A multimethod study of educators’ and after-school
program leaders’ priorities of measures and children’s experiences with continuity and discontinuity]. PhD Dissertation, University of South-Eastern Norway.
Hogsnes, Hilde Dehnæs, and June Berger Storli. 2019. “Lekens betydning i grenseland
mellom barnehage, skolefritidsordning og skole” [The importance of play in theborderland between kindergarten, after-school program and school]. In Lek I
begynneropplæringen. Lekende tilnærminger til skole og SFO [Play in early childhood education: Playful approaches to school and after-school program], editedby Aslaug Andreassen Becher, Elisabeth Bjørnstad, and Hilde Dehnæs Hogsnes,
109–25.
Højlund, Susanne. 2002. Barndomskonstruktioner på feltarbejde i skole, SFO og på sygehus[Childhood constructions: On fieldwork in school, after school care, and hospital].
James, Allison. 2007. Giving Voice to Children’s Voices: Practices and Problems, Pitfalls
and Potentials. American Anthropologist, 109: 261–72. https://doi.org/10.1525/
aa.2007.109.2.261
Kinney, Penelope. 2017. “Walking Interviews.” Social Research Update 67:1–4.
Kuschner, David. 2012. “Play Is Natural to Childhood but School Is Not: The Problem
of Integrating Play into the Curriculum.” International Journal of Play 1:242–49.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2012.735803.
Lillemyr, Ole Fredrik. 2011. Lek, opplevelse, læring: i barnehage og skole [Play, experience, learning: In kindergarten and school].
———. 2020. Taking Play Seriously: A Challenge of Learning. 2nd ed.
Løndal, Knut. 2010a. “The After-School Programme: An Arena for Interaction with
Others through Body Movements in Play.” Phenomenology & Practice 4:30–51.

Children’s Experiences with Outdoor Play in After-School Programs———. 2010b. “Children’s Lived Experience and Their Sense of Coherence: Bodily Playin a Norwegian After-School Programme.” Child Care in Practice 16:391–407.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13575279.2010.498414.
———. 2010c. “Revelations in Bodily Play: A Study among Children in an After-School		Programme.” PhD Dissertation, Norwegian School of Sport and Sciences.
———. 2011. “Bodily Play in the After-School Program: Fulfillment of Intentionality inInteraction between Body and Place.” American Journal of Play 3:385–407.
——— . 2019. “Lek blant førsteklassinger i skole og skolefritidsordning. Pedagogisk
perspektiv og didaktisk handlingsrom” [Play among first graders in school andafter-school program: Pedagogical perspective and didactic latitude]. In Lek I
begynneropplæringen. Lekende tilnærminger til skole og SFO [Play in early childhood education: Playful approaches to school and after-school program], editedby Aslaug Andreassen Becher, Elisabeth Bjørnstad, and Hilde Dehnæs Hogsnes,
93–108.
Løndal, Knut, Anders Lund Hage Haugen, Siv Lund, and Kirsti Riiser. 2020. “Physical
Activity of First Graders in Norwegian After-School Programs: A Relevant Contribution to the Development of Motor Competencies and Learning of Movements?
Investigated Utilizing a Mixed Methods Approach.” PLOS ONE 15:e0232486.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232486.
Løndal, Knut, Siv Lund, Anders Lund Hage Haugen, and Kirsti Riiser. 2021. “First Graders’ Stationary Behavior in Norwegian After-School Programs: A Mixed Methods
Investigation.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
18:1938.
Lund, Siv, and Knut Løndal. 2017. “Fysisk aktivitet i Aktivitetsskolen” [Physical activity
in the after-school program]. Barn 35:71–87.
Malterud, Kirsti. 2012. “Systematic Text Condensation: A Strategy for Qualitative Analysis.” Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 40:795–805. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1403494812465030.
Noam, Gil, and Bailey Triggs. 2017. “Out-of-School Time and Youth Development: Measuring Social-Emotional Development to Inform Program Practice.” International
Journal for Research on Extended Education 5:47–57.
Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. 2019. The Norwegian Education
Mirror.
———. 2021. Rammeplan for SFO [Framework plan for after-school programs].
Øksnes, Maria. 2008. “The Carnival Goes On and On! Children’s Perceptions ofTheir Leisure Time and Play in SFO.” Leisure Studies 27:149–64. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02614360701757140.
Øksnes, Maria, and Anne Greve. 2015. Vennskap. Barndom i barnehagen [Friendship.
Childhood in kindergarten].
Øksnes, Maria, Agneta Knutas, Ann Ludvigsson, Carin Falkner, and Bjørg Kjær. 2014.
“Lekens rolle i skandinaviske skolefritidsordninger og fritidshjem” [The role of playin Scandinavian after-school programs and childcare centers]. Barn 32:107–23.
Øksnes, Maria, and Einar Sundsdal. 2020. Barns lek i skolen [Children’s play in school].

57

58

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AY

Pálsdóttir, Kolbrún. 2012. “Care, Learning, and Leisure: The Organizational Identity of
After-School Centres for Six-to-Nine-Year-Old Children in Reykjavik.” PhD Dissertation, University of Iceland.
Pellegrini, Anthony D., and Peter K. Smith. 1998. “Physical Activity Play: The Natureand Function of a Neglected Aspect of Play.” Child Development 69:577–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06226.x.
Pramling Samuelsson, Ingrid, and Niklas Pramling. 2013. “Winnie-the-Poo Sat in a
Tree, or Did He? A Contemporary Notion on Early Childhood Education beyond
Teaching and Free Play.” In Varied Perspectives on Play and Learning: Theory andResearch on Early Year’s Education, edited by Ole Fredrik Lillemyr, Sue Dockett,and Bob Perry, 9–20.
Riiser, Kirsti, Sølvi Helseth, Hanna Ellingsen, Bjørg Fallang, and Knut Løndal. 2017.
“Active Play in After-School Programmes: Development of an Intervention and
Description of a Matched-Pair Cluster-Randomised Trial Assessing Physical
Activity Play in After-School Programmes.” BMJ Open 7:e016585. https://doi.
org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016585.
Riiser, Kirsti, Anders Lund Hage Haugen, Siv Lund, and Knut Løndal. 2019. “Physical
Activity in Young Schoolchildren in After School Programs.” Journal of School
Health 89:752–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12815.
Rasmussen, Torben Hangaard. 1996. Orden og kaos [Order and chaos].
Sandseter, Ellen Beate Hansen. 2013. “Learning Risk Management through Play.” In
Varied Perspectives on Play and Learning: Theory and Research on Early Years
Education, edited by Ole Fredrik Lillemyr, Sue Dockett, and Bob Perry, 141–57.
Skar, Margrete, Vegard Gundersen, and Liz O’Brien. 2016. “How to Engage Children
with Nature: Why Not Just Let Them Play?” Children’s Geographies 14:527–40.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2015.1136734.
Smith, Peter K. 2005. “Social and Pretend Play in Children.” In The Nature of Play: Great
Apes and Humans, edited by Anthony D. Pellegrini and Peter K. Smith, 173–209.
———. 2009. Children and Play: Understanding Children’s Worlds.
Sundsdal, Einar, and Maria Øksnes. 2015. “Til forsvar for barns spontane lek” [A defenseof children’s spontaneous play]. Nordisk tidsskrift for pedagogikk og kritikk 1. https://doi.org/10.17585/ntpk.v1.89.
Sutton-Smith, Brian. 2008. “Play Theory: A Personal Journey and New Thoughts.” American Journal of Play 1:80–123.
———. 2009. The Ambiguity of Play.
Twining, Peter, Rachelle S. Heller, Miguel Nussbaum, and Chin-Chung Tsai. 2017. “SomeGuidance on Conducting and Reporting Qualitative Studies.” Computers & Education 106:A1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.002.
United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. 2013. General Comment No. 17(2013) on the Right of the Child to Rest, Leisure, Play, Recreational Activities, Cultural Life and the Arts (Art. 31). https://www.refworld.org/docid/51ef9bcc4.html.
Wallerstedt, Cecilia, and Niklas Pramling. 2012. “Learning to Play in a Goal-Directed
Practice.” Early Years 32:5–15.

Children’s Experiences with Outdoor Play in After-School Programs

Wendelborg, Christian, Joakim Caspersen, Siri Mordal, Anna-Lena Ljusberg, Marko
Valenta, and Nihad Bunar. 2018. Play, Learning, and Non-Pedagogy for All: National
Evaluation of the After-School Program in Norway.
Zosh, Jennifer N., Emily J. Hopkins, Hanne Jensen, Claire Liu, Dave Neale, Kathy HirshPasek, S. Lynneth Solis, and David Whitebread. 2017. Learning through Play: A
Review of the Evidence.

59