Exploring toddlers’ rituals of ‘belonging’ through risky play in the outdoor environment

Abstract

The notion of ‘belonging’ is a core component of many early childhood curriculum frameworks and recognises the importance of children’s sociocultural context for their self-identity and well-being. Children’s risk-taking in play has also been the focus of contemporary research in examining its beneficial role for children’s physical, social and emotional development. This study applies diverse disciplinary and theoretical lenses, including Hedegaard’s cultural-historical model and Gibson’s affordance theory, to present a critical and multi-perspective understanding of children’s experience of ‘belonging’ and risky play. The study involved naturalistic observations of 18–26-month-old children’s outdoor play in an environment designed to provide affordances for risky play. The findings suggest that children’s engagement in risky play also supports their sense of belonging through their shared engagement in risky-play experiences.

Keywords

belonging early childhood education outdoor environments risky play toddlers

Introduction

Children’s experiences in outdoor learning environments have had growing research attention in recent years amid concerns for children’s well-being resulting from the general decline in children’s access to outdoor play spaces and anxiety about children’s safety in a risk-averse society (Waller et al., 2017). One area of attention has been children’s engagement in risk-taking, with a focus on the benefits for children’s social, emotional and physical well-being (Brussoni et al., 2012). The importance of outdoor play for children’s learning and development is recognised in many national curriculum frameworks, although the importance of healthy risk-taking does not receive the same attention (Sandseter et al., 2017). Fostering a sense of ‘belonging’ is also a core component of many early childhood curriculum frameworks – for example, in Australia, Finland, New Zealand and South Africa (Sumsion et al., 2018). This article draws on Hedegaard’s (2009) cultural-historical approach to examine toddlers’ engagement in outdoor risky play (Sandseter, 2007), and how this contributes to their sense of belonging in their early childhood education (ECE) setting.

Theoretical conceptualisations of children’s lived spaces share a common understanding that space is more than just physical; it is also culturally, socially and experientially constructed (Sumsion and Harrison, 2014). ECE outdoor environments, as one example of a lived space, are dynamic, ‘experienced, lived and interpreted differently by the people who inhabit them, as well as by those who have an interest in those spaces’ (Sumsion and Harrison, 2014: 3). According to Hedegaard (2012: 127), children’s learning and development need to be understood through their participation in institutional practices, particularly the interaction ‘between the child’s social situation and the activity setting of the institutional practice’. In other words, children’s lives involve participation in institutional practices (within the family, ECE setting, school, etc.), which is realised by shared activities and interactions with others in the context of recurrent everyday contexts and lived spaces. Hedegaard’s (2009: 73) cultural-historical model conceptualises children’s activity from three different perspectives:

The formal societal perspective, which encompasses the historically developed context for society ‘in the form of laws, statutory instruments, and institutionalization of practices’ that underpin children’s participation in activities.

The institutional perspective, which encompasses the everyday practices of different institutions, including underlying traditions, values, motivations and competencies.

The individual’s perspective, which reflects the individual and their personal motivations and participation within everyday activities in the institution.

Children’s experiences of their ECE setting are influenced by national ECE legislation, policies and regulations, quality standards and curricula, as well as the philosophy, aims and practices of the ECE setting (Rutanen, 2014). In the context of this article, two key concepts (belonging and risk-taking) that are framed within Australian ECE legislation, policies and regulations, quality standards and curricula can be analysed through the application of Hedegaard’s (2012) cultural-historical model.

The Australian Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF), Belonging, Being and Becoming, states:

Experiencing belonging – knowing where and with whom you belong – is integral to human existence. Children belong first to a family, a cultural group, a neighbourhood and a wider community. Belonging acknowledges children’s interdependence with others and the basis of relationships in defining identities. (Department of Education, 2009: 7)

Despite its prominence as a core motif in the EYLF, there is limited understanding of how belonging might be fostered and what it means for children’s lived space within the ECE setting. The application of Hedegaard’s (2012) cultural-historical model, focusing on the institutional and individual perspectives, may add to this understanding.

Within a cultural-historical framework, the notion of ‘belonging’ and the valuing of risk-taking for its developmental benefits can be understood within Hedegaard’s (2012) formal societal plane, and their realisation in children’s everyday participation in their ECE setting can be analysed in relation to the institutional and individual perspectives. The importance of opportunities for risky play is acknowledged in the Education and Care Services National Law Act 2010 (‘National Law’), as the following highlights: ‘The National Law does not require services to eliminate all risk and challenge from children’s play or environments’ (Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority, 2017: 67). This is realised through the EYLF (Department of Education, 2009), which recognises that taking calculated risks and dealing with uncertainty is one way through which children become confident and involved learners, and this type of risky play contributes to their emerging autonomy, interdependence, sense of agency and social-emotional well-being as they learn to deal with change and cope with the unexpected. However, support for risky play has not always been evident in the regulatory context. Prior to the introduction of the National Quality Framework in 2012 (Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority, 2020), the previous regulations were seen to be inflexible, limiting the types of experiences ECE settings could provide for children (Little, Wyver and Gibson, 2011). This shift in the formal societal plane opened up possibilities for children’s everyday participation in risky play at the institutional and individual levels.

According to Radich (2012: 36), the physical environment of the ECE setting ‘naturally incorporates the “big ideas” of Being, belonging and becoming, as outlined in the Early Years Learning Framework’. In conjunction with the social context, the physical environment supports children’s developing sense of belonging through fostering a sense of security and promoting the development of relationships with adults and peers (Radich, 2012). While this relationship between the physical environment and belonging is accepted within early childhood practice, to date there has been little research explicitly examining this relationship. This small-scale case study aims to explore children’s engagement in risky play as a context for fostering ‘belonging’. The study primarily draws on Sandseter’s (2007) categories of risky play and Sumsion and Wong’s (2011) cartography of ‘belonging’ to present a multi-perspective understanding of children’s experience of ‘belonging’ in relation to risky play. Gibson’s (1979) affordance theory is applied to further understand the influence of institutional practices and individual participation (Hedegaard, 2012) in outdoor play activities. The concepts of ‘belonging’ and ‘risky play’ are discussed further in the following section.

Dimensions of belonging

Within the formal societal plane (Hedegaard, 2012), the Australian EYLF recognises that, even before birth, ‘children are connected to family, community, culture and place’ (Department of Education, 2009: 7). This is encapsulated in the core motifs of the EYLF: belonging, being and becoming.

‘Belonging’ encompasses all aspects of relatedness that support well-being. Woodhead and Brooker (2008: 3) describe belonging as ‘the relational dimension of personal identity, the fundamental psychosocial “glue” that locates every individual . . . at a particular position in space, time and human society and . . . connects people to each other’. Sumsion and Wong (2011: 42) propose a cartography of belonging that recognises the multiple and interconnected dimensions or ways of belonging, including:

Cultural: associated with a person’s position within a particular group based on shared knowledge, practices, discourses and histories – these provide ways of interpreting and acting within particular contexts.

Emotional: personal and relational aspects associated with acceptance that contribute to a sense of comfort, ease and security (e.g. intimacy, affinity, care and commitment).

Physical: physical affinity with the environment, including embodied knowledge developed through repetitive physical practices carried out over sustained periods of time.

Social: associated with group membership, affinity and attachments beyond the family, including feeling part of a community – recognition, acceptance and participation in its practices, rituals, activities and gatherings.

Spatial: associated with the connection of belonging with place, including the ‘everyday belonging’ that arises from intensive use of the environment and ‘ritualised’ use of space.

Risky play

As the EYLF (Department of Education, 2009) acknowledges, taking calculated risks and dealing with uncertainty is one way through which children become confident and involved learners. This perspective recognises that learning and development occur through encountering challenges and acquiring the resources to deal with them (Hendry and Kloep, 2002, cited in Obee et al., 2020: 3). In this way, children develop a sense of agency and resilience as they learn to deal with change and cope with the unexpected (Department of Education, 2009). From this perspective, risky play is understood as ‘play that involves uncertainty and exploration – bodily, emotional, perceptional or environmental – that could lead to either positive or negative consequences’ (Kleppe et al., 2017: 381).

Within the formal societal plane (Hedegaard, 2012), the Australian EYLF (Department of Education, 2009) recognises the outdoor learning environment as a key context for children’s risk-taking in play to support their learning and development. This is realised within institutional practices (Hedegaard, 2012) as educators support children in becoming confident and involved learners by providing ‘learning environments with appropriate levels of challenge where children are encouraged to explore, experiment and take appropriate risks in their learning’ (Department of Education, 2009: 35). In relation to outdoor physical play, these opportunities for calculated risk-taking are experienced through children’s engagement in physically challenging play afforded by both the physical features of the environment itself and other resources provided within the environment.

Studies of children’s outdoor play have identified children’s natural desire to engage in new experiences where their goal is to move out of their comfort zone and test their own limits (Stephenson, 2003). Stephenson (2003) describes risky play as situations where children have an obvious desire to challenge themselves and extend their skills. The children in her study were particularly drawn to thrilling, exciting and physically challenging activities like climbing, jumping, balancing, riding bikes very fast, climbing around the outside of the fort structure of the fixed play equipment, running across an obstacle course, and swinging very high. A key element of this type of risky play involves attempting something that has never been done before, feeling on the borderline of being out of control (perhaps due to height or speed) and, consequently, overcoming fear (Stephenson, 2003).

The types of behaviours and play environments that distinguish risky play have been further described by Sandseter (2007). As with Stephenson’s (2003) observations of children’s play, Sandseter (2009b) also highlights the sensation of being on the borderline of being out of control and the dual emotions of exhilaration and fear that accompany such experiences. Sandseter (2007: 243) originally proposed six categories of risky play derived from her observations of the play of children aged three to five:

Play with heights where there is a risk of falling.

Play with speed or situations involving uncontrolled speed and pace, potentially leading to collision with people or objects.

Play with dangerous tools where there is a risk of injury.

Play near dangerous elements, involving the possibility of falling into or from something.

Rough-and-tumble play, where children can unintentionally harm each other.

Play where children can disappear/‘get lost’ or be out of the sight of adults.

More recently, Kleppe (2018) added further categories in relation to the play of children aged one to three, recognising that the equipment and environments typically provided for children of this age may result in limited exposure to the objective risk categories described above, with children mainly experiencing subjective risk. Thus, Kleppe’s categories of risky elements (sharing the features of objective risk – e.g. height or speed, but not sufficient to cause physical injury) – impact (crashing bicycles into walls, etc.) and vicarious risk (observing others taking risks) – are also of relevance to the present study.

Opportunities to engage in this type of risk-taking in play are dependent on the characteristics of the outdoor environment and the experiences and resources provided. The EYLF describes outdoor play environments as spaces that ‘invite open-ended interactions, spontaneity, risk-taking, exploration, discovery and connection with nature’ (Department of Education, 2009: 15–16). This notion of the environment inviting certain behaviours aligns with Gibson’s (1979) theory of affordances. Affordances relate to the functional properties of the physical environment that invite us to undertake a particular action (Kyttä, 2004). Affordances that promote risky play provide a context for children to encounter challenges, thereby developing the capacity to deal with them, which supports their development (Hendry and Kloep, 2002, cited in Obee et al., 2020: 3). Obee et al. (2020: 3) suggest that combining Hendry and Kloep’s (2002) model of lifespan development with Gibson’s (1979) theory of affordances ‘leads to an emphasis on creating stimulating and challenging environments, rich in dynamic opportunities’.

Environmental factors such as space, playground design, access to natural environments and the availability of sufficient quality equipment/resources influence children’s opportunities for challenging, risky play. Natural elements and play spaces that support physical activity and challenging, risky play include, for example, trees, rocks, grass, uneven ground and slopes, large open spaces, and areas for gross motor equipment (including equipment for balancing and climbing), swings, slides and bikes (Little, 2017). The outdoor environment in the present study was redesigned under the guidance of the second author to provide a more natural and challenging environment, including a range of environmental affordances for risky play (Sandseter, 2009a).

The current study

This study investigated the social-interactive learning of under threes as they engaged in free play in the outdoor learning environment of their ECE centre. It employed a qualitative case-study approach to analyse the children’s risky play and social interactions during play. The shared experiences that children have in the context of risky outdoor play

develop their understanding of emotionality and intentionality in themselves and others . . . and lead to a growing sense of self-identity in relation to others, which brings with it a reliable sense of ‘belonging’ or ‘awareness of a collective level of knowing’, and meaning within their interpersonal world. (Marwick, 2017: 103–104)

The study aimed to deepen current understandings of belonging by exploring the interrelationship between opportunities for risky play and children’s developing sense of belonging. The study primarily draws on Sumsion and Wong’s (2011) cartography of ‘belonging’ and Gibson’s (1979) affordance theory, whilst applying Hedegaard’s (2012) cultural-historical model to present a multi-perspective understanding of children’s experience of belonging in relation to risky play. The following questions were addressed:

How does the early childhood regulatory landscape support institutional practices that foster children’s sense of belonging and risky play?

How do affordances within the environment promote children’s risky play and belonging?

How does children’s collective engagement in risky play support their sense of belonging?

Methods

Research context

One group of 18–26-month-old children in a long day care setting in regional New South Wales, Australia, was selected for the study. This setting was selected as the outdoor area had been renovated to introduce affordances for risky play into the outdoor play environment. Drawing on Sandseter’s (2007) six categories of risky play, the outdoor environment used by this group of children was redesigned to provide more opportunities for the children to experience aspects of risky play associated with play with heights, secluded play, and play near dangerous elements.

Twenty children (12 female, 8 male) aged 18 to 26 months (M = 22.68 months) and their six educators (5 female, 1 male) participated in the study. This particular group was the focus of this study as they were the youngest of the children who shared this outdoor space, and therefore we were particularly interested in how these young children would negotiate this redesigned space, with its additional physically challenging features that are not typically provided for children of this age in ECE settings.

Affordances for risky play in the outdoor environment

The redesign of the outdoor space used by the children in this study drew on Sandseter’s (2009a) affordances for risky play and included the following:

Climbable features, affording climbing (heights or risky elements) – for example, a tyre tower, A-frames, graduated stepping logs and large rocks.

Jump-down-off-able features, affording jumping down (heights or risky elements) – for example, rocks, graduated stepping logs, A-frames and boards, and a jumping dome.

Balance-on-able features, affording balancing (heights or risky elements) – for example, large rocks, a dry creek bed, graduated stepping logs, A-frames and boards.

Flat, smooth surfaces, affording running, cycling and rough-and-tumble play (speed or rough-and-tumble play) – for example, paths and open grass areas.

Secluded areas, affording privacy and hiding – for example, walled areas and areas behind bushes.

These features of the environment can be seen in Figures 1 to 6.

Figure 1.

The A-frame.

Figure 2.

The jumping dome.

Figure 3.

Rocks.

Figure 4.

Secluded areas.

Figure 5.

Stepping blocks.

Figure 6.

The tyre tower.

Data collection

The children’s play was observed using GoPro cameras two days per month over a seven-month period from April to October (except for August and September, where it was only one day per month) during their morning play session in the outdoor environment (the average duration of the observations was 52 minutes 18 seconds per day). The cameras were mounted in three fixed locations within the playground, providing coverage of the entire space.

Ethical approval for the study was gained through the Macquarie University human ethics committee, and the parents provided written consent for their children to participate. The children were also informed verbally that their play was being recorded by the cameras placed in the playground on each occasion of data collection.

Analysis

This study employed an analytical approach grounded in an interpretive perspective to understand the ways that children’s learning is influenced by the social and cultural resources afforded by their learning contexts (Gaskins et al., 1992). The focus of the data analysis examined how the interpersonal interactions and material provisions combined to form situated cultural resources which shape children’s learning experiences (Lave, 1991).

The children’s engagement in the environment was coded using NVivo software (QSR International, 2020) in relation to the dimensions of belonging (Sumsion and Wong, 2011) and risky-play categories (Kleppe, 2018; Sandseter, 2007). In addition, the affordances within the outdoor space (the tyre tower, rocks, secluded spaces, etc.) were coded for their usage. The video episodes were viewed by the first author and coded at two-minute intervals for any instances of the target behaviours, dimensions or affordances.

Findings

Children’s play preferences

The children utilised most of the outdoor environment for their play during the periods observed. Figures 1 to 6 show the range of affordances available for the children in the outdoor environment that potentially support risky play. The children’s preferences for particular affordances within the outdoor environment are outlined in Table 1. The tyre tower was the most frequently used affordance in the children’s play, with play involving a variety of wheeled toys being the second most preferred activity. Overall, elements within the outdoor environment that afforded climbing (e.g. the tyre tower, A-frame, stepping blocks), jumping (large rocks, the jumping dome, stepping blocks), balancing (large rocks, the dry creek bed, stepping blocks) and riding/pushing (wheeled toys) were the most popular.

Table 1.

Children’s play preferences for the environmental affordances.

Environmental affordances	Frequency (% of total duration of play)
A-frame	43 (16)
Dry creek bed	80 (30)
Jumping dome	35 (9)
Large rocks	93 (33)
Open space	12 (4)
Seclusion	57 (18)
Slide	45 (17)
Stepping blocks	48 (18)
Tyre tower	176 (55)
Wheeled toys (bikes, wagons, etc.)	145 (46)

Risky play

The environmental affordances identified in Table 1 were analysed in terms of Sandseter’s (2007) and Kleppe’s (2018) categories of risky play. The tyre tower and area with the large rocks were frequently used areas, affording opportunities for risky play. The frequency of the children’s engagement in risky play is outlined in Table 2. Kleppe’s (2018) category of ‘risky elements’ (sharing features of objective risk – e.g. loss of balance due to uneven surfaces, height or speed, but not sufficient to cause physical injury) represented the most frequent form of risky play, followed by play with heights associated mainly with the tyre tower.

Table 2.

Children’s engagement in risky play.

Risky-play categories	Frequency of risky play (% of total observed outdoor time)
Hiding/‘disappear’	48 (15)
Impact	41 (13)
Heights	73 (23)
Risky elements
Uneven ground	59 (19)
Heights	127 (41)
Speed	81 (26)
Rough-and-tumble play	3 (1)
Vicarious	3 (1)

Risky play was further analysed in relation to the affordances in the environment (see Table 3). The tyre tower afforded play with heights for those children who climbed to the top of the tower to sit on the rim of the tyres and move between the two sections of the tower at its full height. The tyre tower also promoted play with risky elements (heights) for those children who only climbed to lower levels within the centre of the tower structure. A variety of wheeled toys afforded play with risky elements (speed), as well as play with impact, as the children banged the toys into physical elements in the environment such as rocks, fences, poles and stepping blocks. Overall, the rock area and dry creek bed provided opportunities for the children to engage with risky elements as they routinely balanced precariously, stepping or jumping from rock to rock, as well as play with heights as they jumped from the highest rock. The children competently negotiated the space; however, few felt confident enough to jump independently from the rocks and often sought adult support (see Figure 7).

Table 3.

Frequency of risky-play types promoted by the environmental affordances.

Risky-play categories	Frequency of risky-play occurrences associated with the environmental affordances
Risky-play categories	Hiding/‘disappear’	Heights	Risky elements – uneven ground	Risky elements – heights	Risky elements – speed	Impact	Rough-and-tumble play	Vicarious
A-frame				9
Bikes/ wheeled toys					88	43
Dry creek bed			39
Jumping dome				23
Open space							3
Large rocks			49	12
Seclusion	48
Slide	1			14	14
Stepping blocks				28
Tyre tower		73		43				6

Figure 7.

Educator supporting children to jump from rocks.

Belonging

The environmental affordances and children’s play were analysed in relation to Sumsion and Wong’s (2011) dimensions of belonging (see Tables 4 and 5). As the most frequently observed dimension, spatial belonging was promoted by various environmental affordances within the outdoor environment. The physical features that were part of the redesigned additions to the environment, such as the large rocks, tyre tower and secluded areas, promoted intensive use of the environment and development of intimate knowledge of place (Sumsion and Wong, 2011). In particular, the rock area was a place to gravitate towards and gather when the children first entered the outdoor environment. Physical belonging was observed in the children’s play within this area, characterised by ‘ritualised’ stepping/jumping from rock to rock and jumping from the highest rock. These repetitive physical practices promoted social and emotional belonging. The secluded areas were associated with social and emotional belonging as small groups of children gathered for ‘private’ play away from close adult scrutiny.

Table 4.

Dimensions of belonging as a frequency and percentage of the children’s overall observed outdoor play.

Dimensions of belonging	Frequency (% of total observed outdoor time)
Emotional	47 (15)
Physical	30 (10)
Social	99 (32)
Spatial	104 (33)

Table 5.

Association between risky-play types and dimensions of belonging.

Risky-play categories	Frequency of risky-play occurrences associated with dimensions of belonging
	Emotional	Physical	Social	Spatial
Hiding/‘disappear’	40		37	44
Heights	34	21	43	68
Risky elements
Uneven ground		33	48	59
Heights		10	37	29
Speed		5	26	22
Rough-and-tumble play	3		3

Association between risky play and belonging

Further analysis was conducted to explore the association between children’s engagement in risky play and dimensions of belonging (see Table 5). Risky play associated with the risky elements within the environment (the large rocks and dry creek bed in particular) promoted physical, social and emotional dimensions of belonging, as small groups of children frequently gathered in these spaces and engaged in social play and ‘shared constructions of patterns of regular doings’ (Sumsion and Wong, 2011: 42). Emotional belonging was promoted mainly through the children’s engagement in secluded play, developing their own personal connection with (and ‘ownership’ of) place. Emotional belonging was also evident in the care and support that the children demonstrated towards each other on the rare occasions when their peers stumbled and fell as they negotiated this challenging environment.

Discussion

This study sought to understand how children’s learning is influenced by the social and cultural resources afforded by their learning contexts (Lave, 1991). It adopted a diverse disciplinary and theoretical lens, including Hedegaard’s (2012) cultural-historical model and affordance theory (Gibson, 1979), to provide multi-perspective understanding of children’s experience of ‘belonging’ and risky play. Particular attention was given to the ways that interpersonal interactions between the children and their educators and the material provisions or affordances within the environment combined to form situated cultural resources that shape children’s learning experiences (Lave, 1991).

The redesigned permanent physical features in the environment provided a focal point for the children to gather for social play and engage in different forms of risky play. In line with previous research (Kleppe, 2018; Sandseter, 2007), the young children in this study were drawn to play involving heights, speed, impact and hiding, and, to a lesser extent, rough-and-tumble play. Play with heights was supported by the tyre tower, as it presented a more challenging climbing experience than is typically available in outdoor play spaces for children of this age group. These toddlers also enjoyed play with speed and impact in their use of a variety of wheeled toys – perhaps not surprisingly, given that children of this age are often drawn to this type of play as they develop the use of their large muscles (Johnson et al., 2005). Although the physical elements added to this playground (tyre tower, large rocks graduated stepping blocks) are features that are not typically available in outdoor spaces for children under three, the frequency of engagement with these affordances and the low observed frequency of vicarious risk-taking demonstrates that these children were capable of negotiating more challenging environments than are the norm. Previous research suggests that children tend to actualise affordances that are not overly challenging, engaging in more challenging activities only occasionally (Prieske et al., 2015). These findings provide support for a rethinking of appropriate outdoor environments for young children.

The children’s play in their outdoor environment illustrated the interconnection between their engagement in risky play and sense of belonging. The affordances in the environment that promoted risky play also fostered spatial belonging as the children experienced ‘the “everyday belonging” that can arise from the intensive use of a local environment; intimate knowledge of a place and how it is ordered; and “ritualised use” of a space’ (Sumsion and Wong, 2011: 42). The children experienced physical belonging through their embodied use of the affordances, particularly the ‘repetitive physical practices’ (Sumsion and Wong, 2011: 42) observed in the children’s play over the period of seven months as they engaged in play in the rock area, dry creek bed and tyre tower, and with the wheeled toys.

Through their agentic actions in ‘making decisions of what to play, with whom and where’ (Guo and Dalli, 2016: 255), the outdoor environment of the ECE setting provides a sociocultural context for children to develop their sense of belonging through their risky play promoted by the affordances in the environment. The affordance of the rocks supported exploration of risky elements and play with heights, as well as dimensions of belonging through ‘ritualised’ use of space. The children often headed to the rocks first, as an area to survey the rest of the outdoor space when deciding what to do, as well as using the space to just sit with a friend.

A common feature of collective rituals is synchronised movement, where the focus of the behaviour is on the process rather than the outcome (Watson-Jones and Legare, 2016; Whitehouse and Lanman, 2014), and this was evident in the children’s ritual of jumping from the rocks. The children’s play in this area was characterised by employing their balancing skills as they stepped/jumped from rock to rock, completing multiple circuits of the area. Although the children’s play in this area often began as solitary, they were soon joined by others, with groups of three or more children frequently engaged in this pleasurable joint experience (Brooker, 2014). This ritualised use of the space was associated with the children’s spatial, physical and social dimensions of belonging not only during physical play, but also as a place to sit with friends. Rituals such as this serve to promote trust, cooperation, commitment to the group and social cohesion – becoming attached to each other and thinking and acting as a group (Whitehouse and Lanman, 2014) – thus promoting a sense of social and emotional belonging.

Both the social and spatial dimensions of belonging include participation in rituals and the ritualised use of space (Sumsion and Wong, 2011). Participation in collective rituals is recognised by many social scientists as a means of promoting social cohesion (Whitehouse and Lanman, 2014). Rituals relate to deliberate, meaningful actions invented and participated in by individuals or groups. Watson-Jones and Legare (2016) propose that rituals serve four key functions: (1) as markers of group membership; (2) as demonstrations of commitment to the group; (3) as cooperation with social partnerships; and (4) increasing social cohesion. Arguably, these functions are the means through which ‘children are connected to family, community, culture and place’ (Department of Education, 2009: 7). All four of these functions were evident in the children’s engagement in risky play, thus contributing to their sense of belonging.

Emotional belonging includes relational aspects that ‘contribute to a sense of comfort, ease, security and wellbeing . . . and is associated with acceptance’ (Sumsion and Wong, 2011: 42). Risky play supports children’s social and emotional well-being as they accept challenges and take considered risks (Department of Education, 2009). A willingness to take risks is fostered when children develop supportive relationships with educators, enabling them to develop confidence in their ability to engage in new experiences and take risks in a secure environment. Emotional belonging was also observed through the intimacy and care demonstrated by the children as they sat with a friend or showed care towards their peers on the occasions when a child stumbled and fell on the rocks. The children’s play in the secluded areas behind the bushes also supported a sense of emotional belonging. Moore (2015) explains the importance of children’s ‘secret spaces’, which allow children to develop their own special emotional attachment to place where they feel ‘both connected (internally to place and self) and disconnected (externally from rules, adults and daily routines) and the child retains the power to observe the world without being observed by the world’ (Sturm, 2008: 47).

Hedegaard’s (2012) cultural-historical model provided a framework for interpreting how the interpersonal interactions and material provisions or affordances are influenced by the institutional practices embedded within the everyday activities of these children in their ECE setting. Applying Hedegaard’s cultural-historical model, children’s opportunities for risky play and sense of belonging in their ECE setting are grounded in the formal societal plane through the recognition that these are given in the ECE regulatory context through the EYLF, National Law and National Quality Standards. As one of the central motifs of the EYLF, belonging is seen as ‘integral to human existence’ (Department of Education, 2009: 7). The acknowledgement of the importance of belonging and risky play within the ECE regulatory context is then enacted in practice within the institutional plane through the vision, philosophy and pedagogy of the educators in the ECE centre. This, in turn, influences the lived experiences of the children within the individual plane, which contributes to their engagement in risky play and developing sense of belonging (Hedegaard, 2012). Through experiencing a sense of belonging in the ECE setting, children’s identities within their sociocultural world are shaped. Through their embodied interaction with the environment, children demonstrate their sense of being with others. This engagement also has an affective component, contributing to children’s emotional and social sense of belonging (Goodfellow, 2014; Sumsion and Wong, 2011).

The study demonstrates that the physical characteristics of the environment that afforded risky play also supported the development of a sense of belonging as the children appropriated the space to make it their own. Whilst the small scale of this case study is a limitation, the findings nevertheless contribute to further understanding of the relationship between the physical features of the outdoor environment and children’s sense of belonging within their ECE setting, as well as promoting the developmental benefits associated with physically challenging risky play. Cooke et al. (2019: 11) call for a reconceptualisation of risk in ECE to go beyond just outdoor physical activity, and for further research ‘to talk about risk not only in children’s outdoor physical play, but in all aspects of ECE’. Although the focus of this study is outdoor physical play, it opens up possibilities for considering risk more broadly, not only for children and their experiences, but also for educators. In considering belonging in conjunction with risky play, this study may open up ways for educators to reflect on practices and environments that support children to move out of their comfort zone in all areas of their learning (physical, social, emotional and cognitive).

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Helen Little

Author biographies

Helen Little is a Senior Lecturer in early childhood education in the School of Education where she teaches child development and outdoor learning. Her research examines individual, social and environmental factors influencing children’s risk-taking behaviour in outdoor play.

Matthew Stapleton has undergrgaduate and postgraduate qualifications in industrial design, education and psychology. He is the Director of Centre Support, and his research focuses on belonging.

References

Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (2017) Guide to the Education and Care Services National Law and the Education and Care Services National Regulations 2011. Available at: https://www.acecqa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2018-01/NQF-Resource-02-Guide-to-ECS-Law-Regs.pdf (accessed 8 February 2019).

Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (2020) Guide to the National Quality Framework. Available at: https://www.acecqa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-09/Guide-to-the-NQF-September-2020.pdf (accessed 6 January 2021).

Brooker

(2014) Making this my space: Infants’ and toddlers’ use of resources to make their day care setting their own. In: Harrison

Sumsion

(eds) Lived Spaces of Infant-Toddler Education and Care: Exploring Diverse Perspectives on Theory, Research and Practice. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 29–42.

Brussoni

Olsen

Pike

, et al. (2012) Risky play and children’s safety: Balancing priorities for optimal child development. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 9(9): 3134–3148.

Cooke

Wong

Press

(2019) Towards a re-conceptualisation of risk in early childhood education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood. Epub ahead of print 14 April 2019. DOI: 10.1177/1463949119840740.

Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (2009) Belonging, Being and Becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.

Gaskins

Miller

Corsaro

(1992) Theoretical and methodological perspectives in the interpretive study of children. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 58: 5–23.

Gibson

(1979) The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.

Goodfellow

(2014) Infants initiating encounters with peers in group care environments. In: Harrison

Sumsion

(eds) Lived Spaces of Infant-Toddler Education and Care: Exploring Diverse Perspectives on Theory, Research and Practice. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 201–210.

10.

Guo

Dalli

(2016) Belonging as a force of agency: An exploration of immigrant children’s everyday life in early childhood settings. Global Studies of Childhood 6(3): 254–267.

11.

Hedegaard

(2009) Children’s development from a cultural-historical approach: Children’s activity in everyday local settings as foundation for their development. Mind, Culture, and Activity 16(1): 64–82.

12.

Hedegaard

(2012) Analyzing children’s learning and development in everyday settings from a cultural-historical wholeness approach. Mind, Culture, and Activity 19(2): 127–138.

13.

Johnson

Christie

Wardle

(2005) Play, Development, and Early Education. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

14.

Kleppe

(2018) Affordances for 1- to 3-year-olds’ risky play in early childhood education and care. Journal of Early Childhood Research 16(3): 258–275.

15.

Kleppe

Melhuish

Sandseter

EBH

(2017) Identifying and characterizing risky play in the age one-to-three years. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 25(3): 370–385.

16.

Kyttä

(2004) The extent of children’s independent mobility and the number of actualized affordances as criteria for child-friendly environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24(2): 179–198.

17.

Lave

(1991) Situating learning in communities of practice. In: Resnick

Levine

Teasley

(eds) Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 63–82.

18.

Little

(2017) Promoting risk-taking and physically challenging play in Australian early childhood settings in a changing regulatory environment. Journal of Early Childhood Research 15(1): 83–98

19.

Little

Wyver

Gibson

(2011) The influence of play context and adult attitudes on young children’s physical risk-taking during outdoor play. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 19(1): 113–131.

20.

Marwick

(2017) Supporting concordant intersubjectivity and sense of ‘belonging’ for under three-year-olds in early years settings. In: White

Dalli

(eds) Under-Three-Year-Olds in Policy and Practice. Singapore: Springer, pp. 101–112.

21.

Moore

(2015) The teacher doesn’t know what it is, but she knows where we are’: Young children’s secret places in early childhood outdoor environments. International Journal of Play 4(1): 20–31.

22.

Obee

Sandseter

Gerlach

, et al. (2020) Lessons learned from Norway on risky play in early childhood education and care (ECEC). Early Childhood Education Journal. Epub 18 March 2020. DOI: 10.1007/s10643-020-01044-6.

23.

Prieske

Withagen

Smith

, et al. (2015) Affordances in a simple playscape: Are children attracted to challenging affordances? Journal of Environmental Psychology 41: 101–111.

24.

QSR International (2020) NVivo. Available at: https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/home

25.

Radich

(2012) Being, belonging and becoming in the physical environment. Every Child 18(3): 36–37.

26.

Rutanen

(2014) Lived spaces in a toddler group: Application of Lefebvre’s spatial triad. In: Harrison

Sumsion

(eds) Lived Spaces of Infant-Toddler Education and Care: Exploring Diverse Perspectives on Theory, Research and Practice. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 17–28.

27.

Sandseter

EBH

(2007) Categorising risky play – how can we identify risk-taking in children’s play? European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 15(2): 237–252.

28.

Sandseter

EBH

(2009a) Affordances for risky play in preschool: The importance of features in the play environment. Early Childhood Education Journal 36: 439–446.

29.

Sandseter

EBH

(2009b) Children’s expressions of exhilaration and fear in risky play. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 10(2): 92–106.

30.

Sandseter

EBH

Little

Ball

, et al. (2017) Risk and safety in outdoor play. In: Waller

Ärlemalm-Hagsér

Sandseter

EBH

, et al. (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning. London: SAGE, pp. 113–126.

31.

Stephenson

(2003) Physical risk-taking: Dangerous or endangered? Early Years 23(1): 35–43.

32.

Sturm

(2008) Imaginary ‘geographies’ of childhood: School library media centres as secret spaces. Knowledge Quest 36(4): 47–53.

33.

Sumsion

Harrison

(2014) Introduction: Exploring lived spaces of infant-toddler education and care. In: Harrison

Sumsion

(eds) Lived Spaces of Infant-Toddler Education and Care: Exploring Diverse Perspectives on Theory, Research and Practice. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 1–16.

34.

Sumsion

Harrison

Letsch

, et al. (2018) ‘Belonging’ in Australian early childhood education and care curriculum and quality assurance: Opportunities and risks. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 19(4): 340–355.

35.

Sumsion

Wong

(2011) Interrogating ‘belonging’ in Belonging, Being and Becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 12(1): 28–44.

36.

Waller

Ärlemalm-Hagsér

Sandseter

EBH

, et al. (eds) (2017) The SAGE Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning. London: SAGE.

37.

Watson-Jones

Legare

(2016) The social functions of group rituals. Current Directions in Psychological Science 25(1): 42–46.

38.

Whitehouse

Lanman

(2014) The ties that bind us: Ritual, fusion, and identification. Current Anthropology 55(6): 674–695.

39.

Woodhead

Brooker

(2008) A Sense of Belonging: Early Childhood Matters. The Hague: Bernard van Leer Foundation.