WINTER/HIVER 2017 53 Vol. 42 No. 4

JOURNAL OF CHILDHOOD STUDIES IDEAS FROM PRACTICE

Children, Outdoor Play, and Loose Parts
Caileigh Flannigan and Beverlie Dietze

Caileigh Flannigan, MACYS, is a clinical therapist with Chimo Youth and Family Services in Ontario. She specializes in play, art, and 
nature therapies to support children’s mental health. Her research interests include outdoor play and early childhood development. 
Caileigh spends her free time promoting unstructured outdoor play opportunities in city spaces. Email: caileigh.flannigan@gmail.
com

Beverlie Dietze, PhD, is the director of learning and teaching at Okanagan College, Kelowna, BC. Her research interests include 
outdoor play environments for children and early learning and child care professional staff development models. She was educated 
at Sheridan College, the University of New Brunswick, St. Francis Xavier University, and the University of Toronto. Email: bdietze@
okanagan.bc.ca

Play, especially outdoor play, is a crucial component 
of early childhood. Play is innate and instinctual 
for children. Play influences children’s learning and 
development. Chakravarthi (2009) defined play as 
an act that is “meaningful, intrinsically motivating, 
pleasurable, freely chosen, symbolic, actively engaging 
and opportunistic” and suggested that it be considered 
as “episodic, imaginative and creative and fluid and 
active” (p. 25). According to Chakravarthi, both Piaget 
and Vygotsky viewed children’s play as encompassing 
“creativity, exploration, experimentation, adaptation, 
learning, communication and socialization” (p. 25). 

Despite past and present knowledge of the importance 
of play to early childhood learning and development, 
there has been a national trend over the past decade 
of reducing outdoor play in school and community 
settings (Milteer & Ginsburg, 2012). In many countries, 
including the United Kingdom (Waller, 2007), Denmark, 
and Norway, access to and opportunities for children 
to engage in long periods of outdoor play in the early 
years are being promoted and practiced (Ernst, 2014). 
As children’s rates of obesity, diabetes, and depression 
increase, many communities in Canada are rethinking 
the importance of outdoor play to child development and 

wondering how to increase children’s time and levels of activity outdoors (Tremblay et al., 2015). One strategy that 
is being promoted is for children to have exposure to outdoor play environments that have a variety of natural 
and synthetic loose parts. Loose parts refers to play objects and materials that are open ended and manipulable 
(Nicholson, 1971). Loose parts are moveable, nondictated materials that children can use in a variety of ways (Daly 
& Beloglovsky, 2015; Maxwell, Mitchell, & Evans, 2008).

When children have exposure to intriguing loose parts, they become curious. Children’s curiosity is triggered 
when they see and experience new things and have unique experiences that may not be possible in the indoor 
environment. This sense of curiosity is how children become inspired to engage in new explorations and discoveries 

In an effort to understand how loose parts in 
early learning environments benefit children’s 
play and development, through observations of 
preschool children in a rural outdoor natural 
environment, this study examined behaviours 
that children exhibited as they used loose parts. 
Children exhibited a range of positive social 
behaviours, complex verbal and nonverbal 
behaviours, and various types of risk taking in 
their play. The findings suggest that children 
do not explicitly exhibit stereotypical gender or 
age-exclusion behaviours while using the loose 
parts. The results would suggest that increasing 
children’s opportunities to use loose parts in an 
early years outdoor environment will support 
their various aspects of development in positive 
ways.

Key words: outdoor play; loose parts; early 
childhood development; unstructured play; natural 
environments; play development



WINTER/HIVER 2017 54 Vol. 42 No. 4

JOURNAL OF CHILDHOOD STUDIES IDEAS FROM PRACTICE

(Perry, 2004). The quality and depth of outdoor play experiences can be increased when loose parts are added to 
the outdoor environment (Änggård, 2011; Maxwell et al., 2008). Loose parts give children the freedom to develop 
their play experiences based on their ideas and goals, rather than the play being predetermined by the materials 
or surroundings (Änggård, 2011). This means that the materials do not dictate the type of play children engage in. 
Children create play episodes based on their past experiences, curiosity, creativity, and new ideas.

Loose parts and the fluctuating outdoor environment create affordances for children. Affordances are the 
possibilities that an environmental feature or object provides to an individual. The perception of such possibilities 
leads children to act on that feature or object (Gibson, 1977). Therefore, a feature within an outdoor environment 
may have multiple uses based on children’s perceptions of what could be. For example, a rock could be perceived as 
something to throw or to climb over. A stick could be perceived as a sword or as a tool for digging. The way children 
perceive a loose part influences if and how they use it in their play. Since loose parts do not have a predetermined 
use or outcome, with experience, children can adapt them to be used in multiple ways. The theory of loose parts 
and affordances provides educators with insight into how loose parts in outdoor environments support children in 
being able to create rich and diverse play experiences. 

Loose parts offer children opportunities for unstructured play that is not dominated by adults (Ridgers, Knowles, 
& Sayers, 2012; Staempfli, 2009). Unstructured environments have limited guidelines and rules set by adults, 
allowing and encouraging children to create their own play activities. Outdoor play environments with loose 
parts that are changed regularly provide children with challenges and a sense of wonder, because the potential 
play experiences are constantly changing (Boldemann et al., 2006; Canning, 2010). Early learning teachers and 
programs that embrace the use of loose parts outdoors generally have more flexible schedules, while encouraging 
children to exercise their freedom to play and develop individual control and self-regulation skills (Stephenson, 
2002). Loose parts promote varied play activities among preschool children (Zamani, 2012). 

We contend that outdoor play environments with loose parts support children in having higher levels of engagement 
in their play than environments with more stationary equipment or materials with defined purposes. Loose parts 
in outdoor play environments have a positive influence on children’s play behaviours and their development.

The Study
This study focused on examining the children’s play themes, patterns, and behaviours that became evident with 
the use of familiar loose parts in a natural outdoor environment. The study was divided into two parts. Part one 
focused on observing how children used the preexisting loose parts that were familiar and available to them in 
their outdoor space daily. Part two involved observing children’s play when unfamiliar loose parts were introduced 
in the outdoor environment. This paper focuses on part one of the study. 

Methodology

This phase of the study involved gathering data on how the children played with familiar and frequently used 
loose parts (part one) in order to compare their play when new materials were provided. This study was guided by 
Bronfenbrenners’s (1979) ecological theory, which proposes that there is a relationship between environmental and 
social factors and children’s development (Dietze & Kashin, 2012). These factors influence children through five 
environmental systems: microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 
1979), all of which can contribute to how children execute their play experiences (Dietze & Kashin, 2012). 
Further, children’s play is influenced by their family, educators, federal and provincial policies, culture and societal 
ideologies, and environmental conditions.



WINTER/HIVER 2017 55 Vol. 42 No. 4

JOURNAL OF CHILDHOOD STUDIES IDEAS FROM PRACTICE

Initial meetings were held at a childcare centre with the early childhood educators and the families of the children 
involved in the research. The purpose of the meetings was to discuss the project, examine families’ and educators’ 
views on loose parts and risk taking, and gather information on the availability of play opportunities within 
the community. The themes that evolved from these meetings suggested that all early childhood educators at 
the centre promoted the use of loose parts in the outdoors. However, some parents were unsure as to how such 
materials benefited their children. Structured metal playgrounds, rather than loose parts, were common within 
their community. 

A total of 27 preschool children (11 females and 16 males) between the ages of 4 and 5 and four early childhood 
educators were involved in the research. Each part of the project consisted of three naturalistic observations (six 
total) using a digital video camera that was mounted on a tripod for stability. The video camera was moved around 
the play space to capture children’s various play episodes. In an effort to answer the question regarding if and how 
the familiar loose parts influenced children’s play themes and patterns and how they encouraged development, 
observations were conducted over three weeks on three different occasions. They were completed in an outdoor 
play green space located at the front of the childcare building. The space is fenced by trees and shrubbery and is 
approximately 100 by 50 metres in size. Digital recordings were made of the play interactions as they occurred 
from their beginning to their natural ending point. Field notes were taken during each observational day as a way 
of collecting information on weather conditions, verbal language, and notes about particular play episodes. Field 
notes were used to gather ongoing records of behaviours and play to give continuity to the video data.

Loose part materials

Children’s play with the loose parts consisted of both natural and synthetic materials. Table 1 identifies the specific 
materials provided for each observation day.

Table 1. Schedule of Loose Parts

Day Loose Parts

1
Rope, garbage can, plastic pipes, angled plywood pieces, 
buckets, buoys, tires, crates, dishes, clay trays, nets

2
Shovels, trays, tires, pieces of driftwood, rope, plastic tube, 
large crate, rocks

3
Tire, buoys, pieces of wood, rope, crate, hoola hoop, fishing 
net, buckets, pipes, tubes, dishes

Data analysis

The video data was transcribed after each daily observation as a way to provide a detailed narrative of the play 
and developmental behaviours. The narrative transcripts were analyzed to seek out themes related to verbal and 
nonverbal interactions, social behaviours, physical activity, risk taking, types and patterns of play, as well as age 
and gender behaviours. Coding of the data was conducted after the video footage had been analyzed and was put 
into categories or recurring themes. The patterns of behaviours observed during play that used loose parts were 
noted. 



WINTER/HIVER 2017 56 Vol. 42 No. 4

JOURNAL OF CHILDHOOD STUDIES IDEAS FROM PRACTICE

Findings
Play themes

The most common theme identified was that of weapon/gun play. This may be due to children enjoying the freedom 
of outdoor spaces and the openness of the early childhood educators to movement and verbal expression, such 
as running, chasing, fleeing, climbing, and screaming, which are all common movements of weapon play (Rich, 
2003). Observations noted that children used the sticks, pipe, or other long, skinny objects as weapons and wood 
pieces and cans as shields. Other common themes observed included family roles and dramatic play that included 
good versus bad roles. For example, children would take on the role of mother, father, and baby. The good versus 
bad roles included children playing out roles such as devils, intruders, and bad guys.

Play patterns

A common pattern observed was that the play episodes were goal oriented and involved shared activities. Most of 
the play episodes included children working toward achieving common goals, such as finding materials for their 
home, chasing the bad guy, or making food. Each child would have a role assigned and they would work together 
to execute the play episode.

The use of the affordances of the natural environment was also observed as a common pattern. The natural 
materials afforded by the environment were used frequently during play episodes for functional and dramatic play 
purposes. For example, children would jump and walk and squat over a pile of logs (functional use). Children also 
considered this same pile of logs to be a “fire” that they had to make bigger by piling on more logs and sticks. The 
functional uses were associated with the dramatic play as part of the fire. For example, the boys either wanted to 
get warm by squatting near the pretend fire or they would try to avoid getting burned by jumping over the fire 
(dramatic play). It seems that when loose parts are available to children, they not only perceive the functional use 
of the environment or materials, but also view such items as sticks, leaves, and trees as having imaginary qualities 
that children can incorporate into play episodes. It would appear that children did not view the natural materials 
as having to be used a certain way; therefore, their imaginations were enhanced by being able to ascribe whatever 
role they wished onto the materials.

Social behaviours

Positive social behaviours were apparent and consisted of turn taking, leadership, cooperation, decision making, 
assigning roles, assigning tasks, problem solving, curiosity, and the inclusion of others in discussions of tasks or 
themes. The most prevalent negative behaviours observed were tattling, bossiness, testing of social limits, and 
exclusion of others. The features of outdoor natural environments that include loose parts appeared to impose less 
structure on what the children played with and with whom they interacted. This encouraged children to engage in 
higher levels of social interaction and peer play, due in part to their openness, flexibility, and equity.

Verbal and nonverbal behaviours

Children engaged in a number of common verbal patterns: imitation, repetition, stating the theme, expressions of 
happiness or excitement, crying/whining, making noises that indicated a dramatic role, giving verbal demands or 
directions, making verbal requests for information or action, and using socially inclusive phrases of “we” or “ours,” 
such as “we have to go get the bad guys,” “this tree stump is ours and we must protect it,” and “we are going to make 
smoothies with these pine needles.” It was noted in most digital recordings that children were making loud yells 
and screams, separate from the verbal communication. This screaming could be attributed to their excitement 
over the materials, the accessibility of the open field, or simply being in nature. Common nonverbal behaviours 



WINTER/HIVER 2017 57 Vol. 42 No. 4

JOURNAL OF CHILDHOOD STUDIES IDEAS FROM PRACTICE

were nodding, handing of materials back and forth to create and build, pointing, turning toward / away from, 
onlooking behaviours, raising objects or hands, examining materials, displays of distress, cautious behaviours, 
pushing/pulling, and placement of body on materials.

The outdoor environment provides a rich context that supports children in developing language and communication 
skills. A peaceful area surrounded by nature and free of background noise can motivate children to express 
themselves. Children can use their voice in a variety of ways, including pitches and volumes, without the usual 
constraints imposed in the indoor environments. The addition of loose parts in an outdoor environment provides 
further language development through the use of unfamiliar objects, new experiences, and the array of play 
possibilities.

Risk-taking behaviours

Many observations illustrated children’s risk-taking behaviours. For example, children were observed climbing 
trees, swinging fast on a tree-rope, climbing on a pile of sticks, and walking across a tightrope. The behaviours 
revealed ways in which the children managed their own risks separate from teacher influence. The children rarely 
rushed into a risky situation without testing or questioning the action or environment. Oftentimes they would take 
sequential steps as part of completing an entire risky movement. Outdoor play provides children with adventure, 
challenge, and an element of danger that adds to them develop both confidence and skills in self-regulation and 
problem solving through positive play experience. It is evident that children engage in risk-taking behaviours and 
are capable of assessing their own tolerance for risk.

Types of play

Collecting (the gathering of materials from the loose parts pile), sorting, and placing the loose parts were observed 
as part of children’s play. Generally, the collection of items occurred once a theme was identified by the children, 
created, and played out. For example, the materials were collected for a dramatic purpose such as weapons, buckets 
for making food, wood for a campfire, or decorations for their home. The placement of collected materials was 
usually around a focal point or an important point of reference for the purpose of creating and building areas or 
homes. For instance, in one situation, a group of children took turns collecting loose parts and placed them next 
to or around a tree stump inside their pretend home.

Dramatic and combined play (dramatic and constructive mix) were the second most common play types. Dramatic 
play was evident near the forest called “The Monkey Jungle.” Dramatic roles were also positioned using loose parts, 
such as sticks becoming guns or a pipe becoming a fire hose. Combined types of play also occurred, such as when 
one boy constructed an obstacle course made out of a variety of loose parts that included tires, wooden boards, 
rope, and pipes. This construction was later (approximately 10 minutes) used as a boat and then as a surfboard. 
Functional play was apparent, but did not change significantly over the observation period. Common functional 
play behaviours were chasing, jumping, and rolling rocks down sloped areas. There was some evidence of games 
with rules, such as a made-up hockey game with sticks and buckets.

Gender behaviour

Observations of gender differences during this study were limited in scope. The boys and girls played together 
across many play episodes and used the materials in similar ways. Generally, boys engaged in more weapon, 
rough-and-tumble, and good versus bad themes. However, the girls also engaged in these activities and themes. 
Interestingly, the boys often engaged in play themes such as “house” and “family” that are usually viewed more 
often in the play of girls. At no time did the children verbalize to their peers that they could not play due to their 



WINTER/HIVER 2017 58 Vol. 42 No. 4

JOURNAL OF CHILDHOOD STUDIES IDEAS FROM PRACTICE

gender. The natural outdoor setting and loose-part materials do not regulate what is and what is not possible. The 
natural outdoor environment and the provision of gender-neutral loose parts supported gender-inclusive and 
equitable play. 

Age differences

Generally, all ages played together in a positive way. For example, both the young and older boys engaged in play 
that involved chasing the bad guys and saving the other children. They all collected materials to build houses, 
and all the 4- and 5-year-old children engaged in a game of tug o’ war. There were some instances where younger 
children were excluded from play areas. For example, the older children determined who entered a play theme 
and how often. They would yell at the younger children upon entering their area or for stealing their items. These 
behaviours seemed to surface more depending on the dramatic theme that children were engaged in. 

Age differences were apparent when it came to role creation and management, which were conducted by the older 
children. The younger children took on complementary roles when playing with older children, while the older 
children assumed the leader or decision-maker roles. The younger children listened and obeyed those decisions 
or assigning of tasks. 

The neutrality of the loose parts ensured that materials were not age specific, and therefore age divisions in their 
use were not observed. The natural outdoor environment promoted age inclusion due to its large area, openness, 
and lack of play structures; the mixed ages were inclined to play together for these reasons.

Implications
The findings suggest and provide evidence that loose parts within a natural outdoor environment offer children 
a variety of opportunities for play, social interaction, language use, risk taking, and inclusivity of gender and age. 
The findings may be used to inform early childhood outdoor play policies, practice, and setting of future research 
agendas on the influence loose parts have on children’s play in early childhood settings. 

The value of this research extends beyond the immediate developmental influences that loose parts may have 
for children. The benefits reinforce the importance of children having access and opportunities to engage in 
unstructured, natural outdoor play in Canadian provinces and territories. Extending our knowledge on the 
importance of loose parts and outdoor play will help to solidify outdoor play regulations for early years programs. 
Research on the benefits of loose parts and outdoor play may help reduce the barriers of risk taking and the 
negative attitudes that adults may have toward loose-parts play (Staempfli, 2009) or about the value of outdoor 
play to development. With an increased understanding of how children use loose parts in natural environments, 
we become more accepting of their properties and have a willingness to ensure that they are available. For children 
to benefit from loose parts in their play, it is necessary for early childhood educators to advocate for unstructured 
play in natural landscapes. Providing professional development to early childhood educators on the importance of 
loose-parts play and the application of such materials is necessary (Leggett & Newman, 2017).

Research on natural outdoor environments and loose parts is important for advancing opportunities for child-
directed play spaces. This research illustrated to early childhood educators that the implementation of loose parts 
in an outdoor environment is easy, affordable, and advantageous for children’s development. Early childhood 
educators can replicate this research in a variety of settings, including early years programs, family spaces, and 
school environments. Providing children with loose parts will expand their imaginations and positively influence 
their cognitive, social, emotional, and physical development.



WINTER/HIVER 2017 59 Vol. 42 No. 4

JOURNAL OF CHILDHOOD STUDIES IDEAS FROM PRACTICE

Future research on loose parts in natural outdoor settings may consider having early childhood educators and 
children report on their own experiences, as this would strengthen the accuracy and depth of the findings. 
Interviews with early childhood educators to understand their thoughts and feelings regarding their observations 
of children’s play with loose parts may further expand the body of literature on the power of loose parts in outdoor 
play. Interviews with children could be useful in creating a loose-parts material list of items that they wish to play 
with. Having children tell their stories about their play with loose parts may help researchers understand what 
children think about while using loose parts in their play. Linking self-reports with observations would expand 
the research and create meaningful findings that would support early childhood educators in the implementation 
of loose parts in outdoor play settings.

Acknowledgements
We wish to thank the children, early childhood educators, and parents of the childcare centre that participated in 
this project. 

References
Änggård, E. (2011). Children›s gendered and non-gendered play in natural spaces. Children, Youth, & Environments, 21(2), 5–33. doi: 

2110169830378d

Boldemann, C., Blennow, M., Dal, H., Mårtensson, F., Raustorp, A., Yuen, K., & Wester, U. (2006). Impact of preschool environment upon 
children’s physical activity and sun exposure. Preventive Medicine, 42(4), 301–308. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2005.12.006

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University 
Press.

Canning, N. (2010). The influence of the outdoor environment: Den-making in three different contexts. European Early Childhood 
Education Research Journal, 18(4), 555–566. doi: 10.1080/1350293X.2010.525961

Chakravarthi, S. (2009). Preschool teachers’ beliefs and practices of outdoor play and outdoor environments (Doctoral dissertation). 
Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.453.1839&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Daly, L., & Beloglovsky, M. (2015). Introducing loose parts to preschoolers. Teaching Young Children, 9(1), 18–21.

Dietze, B., & Kashin, D. (2012). Playing and learning in early childhood education. Toronto, ON: Pearson Education.

Ernst, J. (2014). Early childhood educators’ use of natural outdoor settings as learning environments: An exploratory study of beliefs, 
practices, and barriers. Environmental Education Research, 20(6), 735–752. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2013.833596

Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological 
psychology (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 

Leggett, N., & Newman, L. (2017). Play: “Challenging educators’ beliefs about play in the indoor and outdoor environment. Australasian 
Journal of Early Childhood, 42(1), 24–32. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2015.1028394

Maxwell, L. E., Mitchell, M. R., & Evans, G. W. (2008). Effects of play equipment and loose parts on preschool children’s outdoor play 
behavior: An observational study and design intervention. Children, Youth, & Environments, 18(2), 36–63. doi: 10.7721/
chilyoutenvi.18.2.0036

Milteer, R. M., & Ginsburg, K. R. (2012). The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong parent–
child bond: Focus on children in poverty. Pediatrics, 129(1), 204–213. doi: 0.1542/peds.2011-2953

Nicholson, S. (1971). How not to cheat children: The theory of loose parts. Landscape Architecture, 62, 30–35.

Perry, B. (2004). Maltreatment and the developing child: How early childhood experience shapes child and culture [Abstract]. The Inaugural 



WINTER/HIVER 2017 60 Vol. 42 No. 4

JOURNAL OF CHILDHOOD STUDIES IDEAS FROM PRACTICE

Margaret McCain Lecture, The Centre for Children and Families in the Justice System. Retrieved from http://www.lfcc.on.ca/
mccain/perry.pdf

Rich, D. (2003). Bang, bang! Gun play and why children need it. Early Education, 1–6. Retrieved from http://www.richlearningopportunities.
co.uk/index.php/publications/archive-articles-and-publications

Ridgers, N. D., Knowles, Z. R., & Sayers, J. (2012). Encouraging play in the natural environment: A child-focused case study of forest 
school. Children’s Geographies, 10(1), 49–65. doi: 10.1080/14733285.2011.638176

Staempfli, M. B. (2009). Reintroducing adventure into children’s outdoor play environments. Environment and Behavior, 41(2), 268–280. 
doi: 10.1177/0013916508315000

Stephenson, A. (2002). Opening up the outdoors: Exploring the relationship between the indoor and outdoor environments of a centre. 
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 10(1), 29–38. doi: 10.1080/13502930285208821

Tremblay, M. S., Gray, C., Babcock, S., Barnes, J., Bradstreet, C. C., Carr, D., ... & Herrington, S. (2015). Position statement on active outdoor 
play. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(6), 6475–6505. doi: 10.3390/ijerph120606475

Waller, T. (2007). “The trampoline tree and the swamp monster with 18 heads”: Outdoor play in the foundation stage and foundation 
phase. Education 3–13, 35(4), 393–407. doi: 10.1080/03004270701602657

Zamani, Z. (2012). The comparison of cognitive play affordances within natural and manufactured preschool settings. Emergent Placemaking, 
May, 162–167. Retrieved from http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/edra.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/docs/StudentPaper2ndPlace_
Zamani.pdf