what is qualitative research in early childhood education

• Open access
• Published: 20 February 2015

Qualitative Research in Early Childhood Education and Care Implementation

• Wendy K. Jarvie 1  

International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy volume  6 ,  pages 35–43 ( 2012 ) Cite this article

66k Accesses

2 Citations

Metrics details

Governments around the world have boosted their early childhood education and care (ECEC) engagement and investment on the basis of evidence from neurological studies and quantitative social science research. The role of qualitative research is less understood and under-valued. At the same time the hard evidence is only of limited use in helping public servants and governments design policies that work on the ground. The paper argues that some of the key challenges in ECEC today require a focus on implementation. For this a range of qualitative research is required, including knowledge of organisational and parent behaviour, and strategies for generating support for change. This is particularly true of policies and programs aimed at ethnic minority children. It concludes that there is a need for a more systematic approach to analysing and reporting ECEC implementation, along the lines of “implementation science” developed in the health area.

Introduction

Research conducted over the last 15 years has been fundamental to generating support for ECEC policy reform and has led to increased government investments and intervention in ECEC around the world. While neurological evidence has been a powerful influence on ECEC policy practitioners, quantitative research has also been persuasive, particularly randomised trials and longitudinal studies providing evidence (1) on the impact of early childhood development experiences to school success, and to adult income and productivity, and (2) that properly constructed government intervention, particularly for the most disadvantaged children, can make a significant difference to those adult outcomes. At the same time the increased focus on evidence-informed policy has meant experimental/quantitative design studies have become the “gold standard” for producing knowledge (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005 ), and pressures for improved reporting and accountability have meant systematic research effort by government has tended to focus more on data collection and monitoring, than on qualitative research (Bink, 2007 ). In this environment the role of qualitative research has been less valued by senior government officials.

Qualitative Research-WhatIs It?

The term qualitative research means different things to different people (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005 ). For some researchers it is a way of addressing social justice issues and thus is part of radical politics to give power to the marginalised. Others see it simply as another research method that complements quantitative methodologies, without any overt political function. Whatever the definition of qualitative research, or its role, a qualitative study usually:

Features an in depth analysis of an issue, event, entity, or process. This includes literature reviews and meta studies that draw together findings from a number of studies.

Is an attempt to explain a highly complex and/or dynamic issue or process that is unsuited to experimental or quantitative analysis.

Includes a record of the views and behaviours of the players — it studies the world from the perspective of the participating individual.

Cuts across disciplines, fields and subject matter.

Uses a range of methods in one study, such as participant observation; in depth interviewing of participants, key stakeholders, and focus groups; literature review; and document analysis.

High quality qualitative research requires high levels of skill and judgement. Sometimes it requires pulling together information from a mosaic of data sources and can include quantitative data (the latter is sometimes called mixed mode studies). From a public official perspective, the weaknesses of qualitative research can include (a) the cost-it can be very expensive to undertake case studies if there are a large number of participants and issues, (b) the complexity — the reports can be highly detailed, contextually specific examples of implementation experience that while useful for service delivery and front line officials are of limited use for national policy development, (c) difficultyin generalising from poor quality and liable to researcher bias, and (d) focus, at times, more on political agendas of child rights than the most cost-effective policies to support the economic and social development of a nation. It has proved hard for qualitative research to deliver conclusions that are as powerful as those from quantitative research. Educational research too, has suffered from the view that education academics have over-used qualitative research and expert judgement, with little rigorous or quantitative verification (Cook & Gorard, 2007 ).

Qualitative Research and Early Childhood Education and Care

In fact, the strengths of qualitative ECEC research are many, and their importance for government, considerable. Qualitative research has been done in all aspects of ECEC operations and policies, from coordinating mechanisms at a national level (OECD, 2006 ), curriculum frameworks (Office for Children and Early Childhood Development, 2008 ), and determining the critical elements of preschool quality (Siraj-Blatchford et al., 2003 ), to developing services at a community level including effective outreach practices and governance arrangements. Qualitative research underpins best practice guides and regulations (Bink, 2007 ). Cross country comparative studies on policies and programs rely heavily on qualitative research methods.

For public officials qualitative components of program evaluations are essential to understanding how a program has worked, and to what extent variation in outcomes and impacts from those expected, or between communities, are the result of local or national implementation issues or policy flaws. In addition, the public/participant engagement in qualitative components of evaluations can reinforce public trust in public officials and in government more broadly.

In many ways the contrast between quantitative and qualitative research is a false dichotomy and an unproductive comparison. Qualitative research complements quantitative research, for example, through provision of background material and identification of research questions. Much quantitative research relies on qualitative research to define terms, and to identify what needs to be measured. For example, the Effective Provision of PreSchool Education (EPPE) studies, which have been very influential and is a mine of information for policy makers, rely on initial qualitative work on what is quality in a kindergarten, and how can it be assessed systematically (Siraj-Blatchford et al., 2003 ). Qualitative research too can elucidate the “how” of a quantitative result. For example, quantitative research indicates that staff qualifications are strongly associated with better child outcomes, but it is qualitative work that shows that it is not the qualification per se that has an impact on child outcomes-rather it is the ability of staff to create a high quality pedagogic environment (OECD, 2012 ).

Challenges of Early Childhood Education and Care

Systematic qualitative research focused on the design and implementation of government programs is essential for governments today.

Consider some of the big challenges facing governments in early childhood development (note this is not a complete list):

Creating coordinated national agendas for early childhood development that bring together education, health, family and community policies and programs, at national, provincial and local levels (The Lancet, 2011 ).

Building parent and community engagement in ECEC/Early Childhood Development (ECD), including increasing parental awareness of the importance of early childhood services. In highly disadvantaged or dysfunctional communities this also includes increasing their skills and abilities to provide a healthy, stimulating and supportive environment for young children, through for example parenting programs (Naudeau, Kataoka, Valerio, Neuman & Elder, 2011 ; The Lancet, 2011 ; OECD, 2012 ).

Strategies and action focused on ethnic minority children, such as outreach, ethnic minority teachers and teaching assistants and informal as well as formal programs.

Enhancing workforce quality, including reducing turnover, and improved practice (OECD, 2012 ).

Building momentum and advocacy to persuade governments to invest in the more “invisible” components of quality such as workforce professional development and community liaison infrastructure; and to maintain investment over significant periods of time (Jarvie, 2011 ).

Driving a radical change in the way health/education/familyservicepro fessions and their agencies understand each other and to work together. Effectively integrated services focused on parents, children and communities can only be achieved when professions and agencies step outside their silos (Lancet, 2011 ). This would include redesign of initial training and professional development, and fostering collaborations in research, policy design and implementation.

There are also the ongoing needs for,

Identifying and developing effective parenting programs that work in tandem with formal ECEC provision.

Experiments to determine if there are lower cost ways of delivering quality and outcomes for disadvantaged children, including the merits of adding targeted services for these children on the base of universal services.

Figuring out how to scale up from successful trials (Grunewald & Rolnick, 2007 ; Engle et al., 2011 ).

Working out how to make more effective transitions between preschool and primary school.

Making research literature more accessible to public officials (OECD, 2012 ).

Indeed it can be argued that some of the most critical policy and program imperatives are in areas where quantitative research is of little help. In particular, qualitative research on effective strategies for ethnic minority children, their parents and their communities, is urgently needed. In most countries it is the ethnic minority children who are educationally and economically the most disadvantaged, and different strategies are required to engage their parents and communities. This is an area where governments struggle for effectiveness, and public officials have poor skills and capacities. This issue is common across many developed and developing countries, including countries with indigenous children such as Australia, China, Vietnam, Chile, Canada and European countries with migrant minorities (OECD, 2006 ; COAG, 2008 ; World Bank, 2011 ). Research that is systematic and persuasive to governments is needed on for example, the relative effectiveness of having bilingual environments and ethnic minority teachers and teaching assistants in ECEC centres, compared to the simpler community outreach strategies, and how to build parent and community leadership.

Many countries are acknowledging that parental and community engagement is a critical element of effective child development outcomes (OECD, 2012 ). Yet public officials, many siloed in education and child care ministries delivering formal ECEC services, are remote from research on raising parent awareness and parenting programs. They do not see raising parental skills and awareness as core to their policy and program responsibilities. Improving parenting skills is particularly important for very young children (say 0–3) where the impact on brain development is so critical. It has been argued there needs to be a more systematic approach to parenting coach/support programs, to develop a menu of options that we know will work, to explore how informal programs can work with formal programs, and how health programs aimed young mothers or pregnant women can be enriched with education messages (The Lancet, 2011 ).

Other areas where qualitative research could assist are shown in Table 1 (see p. 40).

Implementation Science in Early Childhood Education and Care

Much of the suggested qualitative research in Table 1 is around program design and implementation . It is well-known that policies often fail because program design has not foreseen implementation issues or implementation has inadequate risk management. Early childhood programs are a classic example of the “paradox of non-evidence-based implementation of evidence-based practice” (Drake, Gorman & Torrey, 2005). Governments recognise that implementation is a serious issue: there may be a lot of general knowledge about “what works”, but there is minimal systematic information about how things actually work . One difficulty is that there is a lack of a common language and conceptual framework to describe ECEC implementation. For example, the word “consult” can describe a number of different processes, from public officials holding a one hour meeting with available parents in alocation,to ongoing structures set up which ensureall communityelementsare involved and reflect thespectrum of community views, and tocontinue tobuild up community awareness and engagement over time.

There is a need to derive robust findingsof generic value to public officials, for program design. In the health sciences, there is a developing literature on implementation, including a National implementation Research Network based in the USA, and a Journal of Implementation Science (Fixsen, Naoom, Blasé, Friedman & Wallace, 2005 ). While much of the health science literature is focused on professional practice, some of the concepts they have developed are useful for other fields, such as the concept of “fidelity” of implementation which describes the extent to which a program or service has been implemented as designed. Education program implementation is sometimes included in these fora, however, there is no equivalent significant movement in early childhood education and care.

A priority in qualitative research for ECEC of value to public officials would then appear to be a systematic focus on implementation studies, which would include developing a conceptual framework and possibly a language for systematic description of implementation, as well as, meta-studies. This need not start from scratch-much of the implementation science literature in health is relevant, especially the components around how to influence practitioners to incorporate latest evidence-based research into their practice, and the notions of fidelity of implementation. It could provide an opportunity to engage providers and ECE professionals in research, where historically ECEC research has been weak.

Essential to this would be collaborative relationships between government agencies, providers and research institutions, so that there is a flow of information and findings between all parties.

Quantitative social science research, together with studies of brain development, has successfully made the case for greater investment in the early years.There has been less emphasis on investigating what works on the ground especially for the most disadvantaged groups, and bringing findings together to inform government action. Yet many of the ECEC challenges facing governments are in implementation, and in ensuring that interventions are high quality. This is particularly true of interventions to assist ethnic minority children, who in many countries are the most marginalised and disadvantaged. Without studies that can improve the quality of ECEC implementation, governments, and other bodies implementing ECEC strategies, are at risk of not delivering the expected returns on early childhood investment. This could, over time, undermine the case for sustained government support.

It is time for a rebalancing of government research activity towards qualitative research, complemented by scaled up collaborations with ECEC providers and research institutions. A significant element of this research activity could usefully be in developing a more systematic approach to analysing and reporting implementation, and linking implementation to outcomes. This has been done quite effectively in the health sciences. An investment in developing an ECEC ‘implementation science’ would thus appear to be a worthy of focus for future work.

Bink, S. (2007). A Large-scale Policy Research Programme: A Canadian Experience. In Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, Evidence in Education: Linking Research and Policy (pp. 109–116). Paris: OECD Publishing.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

COAG (Council of Australian Governments). (2008). A National Partnership Agreement on Indigenous Early Childhood Development . Retrieved from http://www.coag.gov.au/coag_meeting_outcomes/2008-10-2/docs/indigenous_early_childhood_NPA.pdf

Cook, T. & Gorard, S. (2007). What Counts and What should Count as Evidence. In Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, Evidence in Education: Linking Research and Policy (pp 33–49). Paris: OECD Publishing.

Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Google Scholar  

Drake, R. E., Essock, S. M., & Torrey, W. C. (2002). Implementing adult “tool kits” in mental health . Paper presented at the NASMHPD conference, Tampa, FL.

Engle, P. L., Fernald, L. C. H., Alderman, H., Behrman, J., O’Gara, C., Yousafzai, A., Cabral de Mello, M., Hidrobo, M., Ulkuer, N., Ertem, I. & Iltus, S. (2011). Strategies for reducing inequalities and improving developmental outcomes for young children in low-income and middle-income countries. The Lancet , 378 (9799), 1339–1353.

Article   Google Scholar  

Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blasé, K. A., Friedman, R. M. & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature (FMHI Publication #23) . Retrieved from University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, the National Implementation Research Network website: http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/sites/nirn.fpg.unc.edu/files/resources/NIRN-MonographFull-01-2005.pdf

Grunewald, R., & Rolnick, A. (2007). A Productive Investment: Early Childhood Development, In M. Young & L. Richardson (Eds.), Early Child Development From Measurement to Action: A Priority for Growth and Equity (pp. 15–26). Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Jarvie, W.K. (2011). Governments and Integrated Early Childhood Development Policies and Services . Paper presentedat the 2011 International Conference on Early Childhood Development, Beijing.

Naudeau, S., Kataoka, N., Valerio, A., Neuman, M. J. & Elder, L. K. (2011). Investing in Young Children: An Early Childhood Development Guide for Policy Dialogue and Project Preparation . Washington, DC: The World Bank.

OECD. (2006). Starting Strong II: Early Childhood Education and Care . Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2012). Starting Strong III: A Quality Toolbox for Early Childhood Education and Care . Paris: OECD Publishing.

Office for Children and Early Childhood Development, Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. (2008). A Research Paper to inform the development of an early years learning framework for Australia . Retrieved from http://deewr.gov.au/Earlychildhood/Policy_Agenda/EarlyChildhoodWorkforce/Documents/AResearchPapertoinformthedevelopmentofAnEarlyYears.pdf

Siraj-Blatchford, I., Sylva, K., Taggart, B., Sammons, P., Melhuish, E., & Elliot, K. (2003). The Effective Provision of PreSchool Education (EPPE) Project: Intensive Case Studies of Practice across the Foundation Stage (Technical Paper 10). London: DfEE/Institute of Education, University of London.

The Lancet. (2011). The Debate: Why hasn’t the world embraced early childhood development? [Video Post] Retrieved from http://www.thelancet.com/series/child-development-in-developing-countries-2

The World Bank. (2011). Early Child Development in China: Breaking the Cycle of Poverty and Improving Future Competiveness (Report No. 53746-CN). Retrieved from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/9383/709830PUB0EPI0067926B09780821395646.pdf?sequence=1

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Business, University of New South Wales at Canberra, Northcott Dr., Canberra, ACT, 2600, Australia

Wendy K. Jarvie ( visiting professor )

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wendy K. Jarvie .

Additional information

This paper was originally prepared for the OECD Early Childhood Education and Care Network Meeting, 24 January 2012, Oslo, Norway.

Rights and permissions

Open Access  This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Jarvie, W.K. Qualitative Research in Early Childhood Education and Care Implementation. ICEP 6 , 35–43 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/2288-6729-6-2-35

Download citation

Published : 20 February 2015

Issue Date : November 2012

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/2288-6729-6-2-35

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• early childhood education and care
• implementation
• qualitative research
• implementation science
• ethnic minority children

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Environ Res Public Health

“It’s Embedded in What We Do for Every Child”: A Qualitative Exploration of Early Childhood Educators’ Perspectives on Supporting Children’s Social and Emotional Learning

Claire blewitt.

1 Health and Social Care Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC 3004, Australia; [email protected] (C.B.); [email protected] (A.O.); [email protected] (H.M.); [email protected] (R.G.)

Amanda O’Connor

Heather morris, andrea nolan.

2 School of Education, Faculty of Arts and Education, Deakin University, 1 Gheringhap Street, Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia; [email protected]

3 Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Level 1, 42-51 Kanooka Grove, Clayton, VIC 3168, Australia; [email protected]

Rachael Green

Amalia ifanti.

4 Department of Educational Sciences and Early Childhood Education, University of Patras, 26504 Patras, Greece; rg.sartapu@itnafi

Kylie Jackson

5 Bestchance Child Family Care, 583 Ferntree Gully Road, Glen Waverley, VIC 3150, Australia; ua.gro.ecnahctseb@noskcaJK

Helen Skouteris

6 Warwick Business School, Warwick University, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK

Associated Data

Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Early childhood educators play an important role in supporting children’s social and emotional development. While a growing body of research has examined the impact of curriculum-based social and emotional learning (SEL) programs on child outcomes, the approaches educators use to strengthen children’s social and emotional functioning through their everyday practices are less defined. This study explored Australian early childhood educators’ perspectives on children’s social and emotional development, the approaches educators use to encourage children’s social and emotional skills, the enablers and barriers to SEL within the preschool environment, and the additional support needed. Thirty Early Childhood Education and Care professionals participated in semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions. Findings suggest children’s social–emotional development is at the forefront of educator planning, practice, and reflection. Participants described utilising various approaches to support children’s social and emotional skills, embedded within interactions and relationships with children and families. Specifically, strategies could be grouped into four broad categories: a nurturing and responsive educator–child relationship; supporting SEL through everyday interactions and practice; utilising the physical environment to encourage SEL; and working in partnership with caregivers. There was, however, inconsistency in the variety and type of approaches identified. Time constraints, group size, educator confidence and capability, high staff turnover, and limited guidance regarding high-quality social and emotional pedagogy were identified as key barriers. Participants sought practical strategies that could be embedded into daily practice to build upon current knowledge.

1. Introduction

Early childhood presents a unique window for social and emotional skill development. Social and emotional competence in young children has been described as an emerging ability to establish secure relationships with both adults and peers, experience, regulate and express emotions, explore the environment, and learn. This development occurs within the context of family, community and culture [ 1 ]. Frameworks of social–emotional functioning in early childhood grapple with the rapid growth that takes place during this period and the overlap between various skills and behaviours. As such, scholars often suggest domains of development and discrete skills that sit within each [ 2 , 3 ]. Drawing on a review of social–emotional domains most often captured in theoretical models, Halle and Darling-Churchill [ 4 ] offer social competence, emotional competence, self-regulation, and behaviour problems as central to understanding and assessing child development. Executive functioning is increasingly included as a distinct but related dimension, referring to the cognitive processes which enable children to organise their thinking and behaviour, facilitating self-regulation and learning.

This is also a period when social and emotional difficulties can first emerge. Australian research suggests between 13% and 19% of children aged 1.5 to 3 years display clinically significant difficulties with social, emotional or behavioural functioning, increasing to almost 20% by six years of age; however, only 16% of these access support from specialist mental health services [ 5 ]. Increasing understanding of the epidemiology of mental health problems indicates a robust link between social, emotional, and behavioural difficulties in childhood and later mental health problems [ 6 , 7 ], in addition to other maladaptive outcomes including obesity, diabetes and heart disease, lower rates of tertiary education, and reduced vocational opportunities [ 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ].

The social and emotional skills that provide a foundation for ongoing learning and wellbeing are largely shaped by a child’s early relationships and care experiences [ 11 , 12 ]. Socioecological perspectives of child development [ 13 ] offer a framework to consider the multiple relationships and environments in which child development occurs. While family is recognised as the first and foremost influence on children’s wellbeing, other individuals, such as early childhood educators, can play an important role in supporting healthy development. Many children access Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) in the formative years before formal schooling [ 14 ], offering a pathway to reach children at their point of need. High-quality ECEC includes both structural and process elements. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, this encompasses a stimulating environment, high-quality pedagogy and teacher–child interactions, highly qualified educators, and positive working conditions [ 15 ]. Together, these factors can strengthen children’s social, emotional, and cognitive functioning and subsequent school readiness, with research suggesting improvement in short- and long-term learning, health, and vocational outcomes [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]. This can be especially important for children showing signs of early social and emotional difficulty, and children exposed to other individual or familial risk factors, such as socioeconomic disadvantage [ 20 , 21 , 22 ].

Knowledge of the importance of high-quality early learning experiences has seen children’s social and emotional skills prioritised in learning policy and curricula across countries, including Australia [ 23 ], the United States [ 24 ], England [ 25 , 26 ], and Singapore [ 27 ]. Social and emotional learning (SEL) describes the process by which children acquire and apply knowledge, skills, and attitudes relating to self-awareness, social awareness, self-management, relationship skills, and responsible decision making [ 28 ]. Research evidence shows early childhood educators can strengthen these emerging social and emotional competencies that promote future learning, health, and wellbeing in a similar way that they foster language and early literacy skills; through explicit instruction, teacher practices, integration within broader early learning pedagogy, and systemic integration across early childhood classrooms, settings, families, and communities [ 29 , 30 , 31 ]. Subsequently, there is increasing availability of SEL programming designed for ECEC to support educators to foster children’s social and emotional health [ 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 ].

Teachers’ perspectives on SEL can influence adoption and sustainability and may moderate impact child outcomes [ 35 , 36 ]. These have been investigated by examining the social validity of SEL programming [ 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 ], and exploration of educators’ views relating to classroom-based SEL programs [ 41 ]. In a recent qualitative study, early childhood teachers (pre-kindergarten to Grade 3) in urban classrooms in the United States contended that they, with parents, were responsible for supporting children’s social and emotional competences. Educators wanted SEL curricula but did not want scripted programs as these placed restrictions which some perceived to limit their ability to effectively implement interventions. They also highlighted that SEL programming should reflect school and classroom culture, children’s racial and ethnic background, and the culture of children’s community, and that tangible resources and support from professionals was critical for successful implementation. Barriers to SEL included limited time, lack of support, insufficient resources, devaluing the teaching of social and emotional competences, and programs that were not contextually relevant [ 41 ].

Studies have also examined how educators facilitate SEL through their everyday practice and interactions, without deliberate intervention (i.e., without utilising an explicit SEL program). Aubrey and Ward [ 42 ] used survey (n = 46) and follow-up interviews (n = 3) to explore the views of early years practitioners in the United Kingdom regarding early intervention for young children experiencing difficulties in personal, social, and emotional development (PSED). They identified a variety of strategies to strengthen PSED including modelling, establishing clear expectations, formally teaching social skills, dialogue and explanation, shared games and activities, and scaffolding. A similar mixed-methods approach was adopted by Hollingsworth and Winter [ 43 ] in the United States who explored preschool teachers’ beliefs relating to social–emotional competencies and the teacher practices that support these skills. In a study involving 32 Head Start and pre-kindergarten teachers, educators placed higher importance on social–emotional skills than early language, literacy, and math and employed a variety of responsive practices to promote prosocial skills, pretend play, and friendship formation. In contrast, Papadopoulou and colleagues explored the perceptions of 34 educators working in childcare centres in Greece. While educators acknowledged the importance of social and emotional competencies, they did not report consistent use of practices to promote these skills in the ECEC setting. The authors argued this may be influenced by a lack of formal pedagogical childcare curricula, guidelines or practices focused on social and emotional development, structural barriers, and a belief that social and emotional development is beyond their sphere of influence [ 44 ].

1.1. The Australian Context

SEL literature recognises that while children have common developmental needs, cultures differ in how competences are expressed, and approaches to aid SEL must empower children within their unique environment [ 45 , 46 ]. Similar to other countries, Australia has seen rapid interest and expansion in SEL across all levels of education, including ECEC. Australian ECEC providers operate under the National Quality Framework [ 47 ], incorporating national law and regulations, the National Quality Standard, the assessment and quality rating process, and learning frameworks including Being, Belonging, Becoming: Early Years Learning Framework 2009 (EYLF) [ 23 ]. This framework guides early childhood curriculum and pedagogy to address the developmental needs, interests, and experiences of each child, while taking into account individual differences. The EYLF describes the expected outcomes for all children who attend ECEC services, with a strong emphasis on social and emotional wellbeing, including that they have a strong sense of identity, are connected with and contribute to their world, have a strong sense of wellbeing, and are confident and involved learners and effective communicators. This Framework calls attention to child-centred and integrated teaching approaches to facilitate knowledge and skill acquisition, while recognising children learn at different rates, in different ways, and at different times. Further, it acknowledges educator practice and decision making is based on knowledge and skill, knowledge of children, families and communities, self-awareness of how their own beliefs and values impact children’s learning, personal styles, and past experiences. Underpinning the EYLF learning philosophy is contemporary knowledge of early social and emotional development, encouraging educators to consider children’s learning and development within daily practice, curriculum decisions, planning, and reflection. In Victoria, where the current study was conducted, the Victorian Early Years Learning and Development Framework, aligned to the pedagogy of the EYLF, also informs the practice of Victorian professionals working with young children [ 48 ].

1.2. The Present Study

National policy and frameworks set a clear expectation that Australian educators foster children’s social and emotional competencies. However, many educators have not received formal preservice or professional learning in SEL or strengthening children’s social and emotional capabilities through teacher–child interactions [ 41 , 49 , 50 ]. Furthermore, little is known about educators’ perceptions of how they encourage SEL within the early learning environment, and there lacks research investigating the barriers and enablers for SEL delivered as part of everyday ECEC practice.

To inform the development of an intervention to support educators to foster children’s social and emotional development in Australian early childhood settings, an understanding of educator knowledge and perceptions of their current practice was needed. Exploration of educators’ perspectives regarding children’s social and emotional development and the role they play could uncover important strengths and limitations in current practices, highlighting opportunities to support the sector to improve outcomes for young children.

The aim of this study, therefore, was to examine educators’ perspectives on children’s social and emotional development within the ECEC environment, the approaches educators use to encourage children’s social and emotional skills, the enablers and barriers for educators in fostering social and emotional skills within their classroom, and the supports that could strengthen practice across the sector. To address this topic in depth, a qualitative design with semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions was adopted.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. participants.

A convenience sample of 30 professionals working within the ECEC sector were recruited to participate in this study [ 51 ]. Participants included early childhood educators working in kindergarten and long day-care rooms from four Melbourne-based ECEC providers (n = 20), 5 non-teaching staff who held a leadership or executive management position with oversight of ECEC service provision, 3 researchers with expertise in early child development within ECEC, and 2 staff from non-government agencies with knowledge or involvement in efforts to increase early social and emotional development. These non-teaching professionals were included to provide further insight and validation of educators’ perspectives. A list of potential participants was generated by the research team and invited to participate via email. The demographic characteristics of participants are provided in Table 1 . The ECEC providers who participated in this study manage services within culturally diverse communities across the Greater Melbourne region.

Demographic characteristics of the participants.

2.2. Interviews and Focus Group Discussions

This study included both individual in-depth telephone interviews (n = 13) and in-person focus group discussions (n = 17). The inclusion of individual interviews and focus group discussions was informed by the availability and preference of participants. In-depth interviews were carried out with 13 professionals. Participants were provided a Plain Language Statement from the research team via email. Where informed, written consent was provided, an interview was conducted via phone by a member of the research team (CB). Each interview was audio-recorded. While recognising in-person interviews are often considered the gold standard [ 52 ], studies show telephone interviewing can offer an effective mechanism for data collection [ 53 , 54 , 55 ]. In one of the four participating ECEC centres, educators were invited to take part in a focus group discussion with their peers during a planned professional development session. All educators received a Plain Language Statement and a member of the research team described the project. Educators (17 in total) who provided informed, written consent were separated into three groups. A member of the research team facilitated each group discussion using the interview schedule, which was audio-recorded.

Interview questions were designed by the authors of this study. The topics in the interview guide (provided in Supplementary Materials ) related to participants’ knowledge of children’s social and emotional development in early childhood, approaches utilised to support children to develop both socially and emotionally in ECEC settings, perceived barriers to SEL, and potential pathways to overcome these barriers. The structure of the discussions included an introductory statement on each topic (knowledge, approaches, barriers, and pathways), followed by a series of open-ended questions. Ethics approval to conduct the study was granted by the Deakin University Human Ethics Advisory Group.

2.3. Analysis

Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify the patterns and themes reported [ 56 ]. Our analyses were guided by the approach used by O’Connor, Nolan, Bergmeier, Williams-Smith, and Skouteris in their qualitative study investigating early childhood educator perspectives of supporting parent–child relationships and children’s social and emotional development [ 57 ]. Specifically, the five phases of inductive thematic analysis used were: (i) become familiar with the data; (ii) generate initial codes; (iii) search for themes; (iv) review themes; and (v) define and name themes [ 56 ]. Interviews and focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim. Two researchers (CB, AO) independently read, re-read, and coded 20% of transcripts to ensure the identification of consistent themes. Each transcript was read multiple times and initial codes identified. Similar initial codes were then grouped into more general themes, guided by the study aims. An Excel spreadsheet was used to assist with data management, coding, and analysis. Researchers compared and refined codes, themes, and subthemes, and any differences in independent coding were resolved by discussion. One author (CB) coded the remaining transcripts according to the coding structure. Members of the research team then reviewed and cross-checked codes, themes, and subthemes to ensure accurate coding of participant perspectives.

Four core themes emerged from the analyses, described in detail below, relating to: (1) educator knowledge; (2) mobilising knowledge—social and emotional learning is embedded within interactions; (3) barriers—capacity and capability; and (4) strengthening educator skill—building knowledge through practical strategies. Quotes are verbatim comments from participants (E = Educator, individual interview, FG = Educator, focus group, and P = ECEC professional in a non-teaching role).

3.1. Educator Knowledge

Participants referred to a broad range of competencies to describe early social and emotional development. Social development was recognised through prosocial interactions and communication with peers, caregivers, and groups, ability to communicate own needs, and confidence to separate from parents or caregivers. Emotional skills included understanding, labelling, expressing, and regulating emotion, recognising emotion in others, and displaying empathy. Self-awareness and identity, confidence, responsible decision making, resilience, and coping were also identified. Professionals who were not employed directly within the classroom (i.e., ECEC leaders, researchers, and program managers) were more likely to describe social and emotional development as the demonstrated growth in capabilities against expected milestones or norms, compared with educators who described observed behaviours and reflected on their own encounters and experiences working with children. Only two participants discussed the relationship between social–emotional development and mental health; however, all recognised social–emotional functioning as one of the most important areas of focus for ECEC, and foundational for future development:

Really for me social and emotional development is the most important thing to focus on for young children, I think all of the academic stuff will come if they have the right sort of social and emotional development [E08]

When asked to describe the factors that influence children’s social and emotional skills, educators and other ECEC professionals referred to individual, interpersonal, and environmental aspects. At the individual level, child temperament, communication skills, stage of development, confidence, and resilience were identified. Most emphasised the importance of secure, consistent relationships with parents and caregivers, as well as other adults outside the family. In addition, organisational and environmental factors were acknowledged in many interviews as important determinants of social and emotional growth, including the home environment, general surroundings and experiences, cultural influences, high-quality early years learning programs, and exposure to environments that encourage exploration.

Participants pointed to various indicators of early social challenges. Behavioural problems including aggression, attention seeking, lack of initiative, and excessive physical expression were highlighted, as well as difficulty engaging in prosocial interaction and play, evident through high levels of conflict, lack of confidence, and social disconnection. A number of educators identified difficulty separating from parents, internalising behaviour, over-reliance on the educator, and speech and language delays as indicative of broader social difficulties. Similar themes were identified as markers of emotional problems. Several respondents also referred to dysregulated emotional responses as an important indicator of potential emotional challenges. ECEC professionals recognised the need to consider children’s behaviour in terms of what would be expected of a child that age, as well as the “normal” behaviour of the individual child.

Educators reported that they derived knowledge through structured learning experiences such as pre-service education, professional development, online training, and conferences, as well as educator-led learning through internet and print research, sourcing journal articles, and referring to theory. Many discussed drawing on their experiences in the early learning environment, working with children and families with diverse and individual needs, knowledge gained through the trial-and-error nature of the ECEC educator role, observation of their peers, insights from parents, knowledge gained from being a parent themselves, and interaction, discussion, and reflection with colleagues:

It’s talking amongst our peers too, and observing, and learning as you go along with the children [FG5]

Further, several highlighted the benefits of working closely with other professionals, including preschool field officers and early intervention services who can provide targeted and intensive strategies and assistance. One service offered educators monthly consultations with a clinical psychologist. During each session, an educator presented on a child exhibiting difficult or challenging behaviour. The group then worked together on strategies, and the psychologist offered input and advice in relation to mental health and possible influential family factors.

Educators were asked if they used a curriculum to support children’s social and emotional development. Responses were mixed. Several noted their practice was guided by the EYLF. Others did not use a specific curriculum but indicated practices to support social and emotional development were embedded within a shared philosophy and approach, experience and understanding of the dynamics of the children and group, planning for children’s learning, reflection, and professional development. A small number of respondents suggested they would welcome specific SEL curricula:

I think a curriculum would be a great thing, because then you could be quite sure what all children are getting…. all the children would have the same foundation [E08]

I would say it’s possibly the forgotten area a little bit. I think there’s a big focus on literacy, a big focus on numeracy, STEM is the big buzz word at the moment, that everybody is focusing on, which is fantastic but as these things come into fashion, some of the other things fall off a bit and I think because social and emotional [development] is different, I don’t think there is a one size fits all…… just from an intentional teaching perspective, I think it’s something we could definitely do some more work on [E14]

3.2. Mobilising Knowledge—SEL Is Embedded within Interactions

Participants described various approaches to support children’s social and emotional skills. These were embedded within relationships and interactions with children and families.

3.2.1. Educator–Child Relationship

The educator–child relationship was widely acknowledged by educators and other professionals as critical to children’s development. Through a responsive and nurturing relationship, educators “tune into” children, gaining knowledge and understanding of each child’s individual needs. They can then identify concerns quickly and predict possible future behaviour. Staff from ECEC services (both educators and management) described this relationship in terms of attachment theory, emphasising that educators offer security by building trust and being emotionally available. One educational leader noted how this secure and safe base allows children to feel supported and build confidence as they experience “big feelings” and practise the skills to master them; the conversations children have with educators help them to make sense of what they are feeling.

I think it’s just really being available to the children, so really being in tune with them, to their emotions and being emotionally available yourself so that you can respond to children appropriately, you know you can support them through managing their emotions appropriately [P03]

3.2.2. Supporting SEL through Everyday Interactions

Targeted strategies to support SEL were embedded within everyday experiences and interactions, during child-directed play and learning, guided play and learning, and adult-led learning. Educators discussed utilising a broad range of approaches tailored to children’s needs; however, there was variation in the breadth of strategies identified across interviews. As noted by an ECEC leader:

Supporting children with social and emotional [development] shouldn’t sit separate to what we do every day with every child…it’s embedded in what we do for every child [P01]

Educator role modelling was identified as especially beneficial for children experiencing behavioural difficulty. Educators discussed allowing children to observe and absorb appropriate behaviour without expectations and gradually participate at their own pace. Many educators also discussed assisting children in identifying and labelling their emotions, understanding there is nothing wrong with their feelings, and building strategies and skills to move forward. The following comment is representative of findings:

We label the emotion, “I can see you’re really angry that your friend walked away from you, and I can see that made you upset, let’s try and solve the problem together” and getting in the moment rather than teaching on the mat [FG5]

Tapping into teachable moments during child-led play was identified by several participants, who recognised the learning that occurs through responsive interactions and gentle conversations. Individual and small group discussions allow educators to work alongside children, talk about how they are feeling, and help them to identify the words to explain their emotions. Educators also described working with children through adult-led teaching, using social stories, structured activities, songs, books, games, puppets, and role play. As one educator noted, stories are an especially effective way to help children to identify with what might be happening around them, and how they and others might be feeling, thereby starting to develop empathy:

Children are quite egocentric and our role is to get them to start thinking about how our behaviours and actions can affect other people as well [E14]

3.2.3. Physical Environment Supports SEL

The influence of the layout and organisation of the preschool classroom on children’s development was also highlighted. Educators noted visual aids (e.g., visual schedules and visual cards) are especially helpful for children with additional needs (requiring or able to benefit from specific considerations or adaptations). These can assist children in understanding and predicting what the day will look like, self-regulating, and controlling their emotions. Educators used the physical resources and materials within the room as a behaviour management technique—for example, redirecting children to activities or play stations which educators knew were enjoyable for that child, and setting up play spaces that responded to different sensory needs. The variety of play spaces and activities available encourage creativity, social interaction, and quiet time. As one educator explained:

I think everything in a kindergarten setting is set up to help children socially and emotionally, from the types of play spaces that are provided, they’re active, there are quiet play spaces, there’s play spaces for one child, there’s places for four children, everything in the room is set up to help them engage socially in their environment and with the people around them [FG4]

3.2.4. Working with Caregivers

Participants consistently emphasised the importance of working in partnership with caregivers to support children’s social and emotional functioning. Parents were recognised as the most important influence on their child’s life, and therefore, any strategies implemented in the preschool classroom are unlikely to be effective without reinforcement and consistency at home. Educators built relationships with families, recognised the individual needs of the child and family, and worked with the family to identify and implement strategies. ECEC centres use a range of approaches to build this partnership, including intake interviews, questionnaires, meetings, making parents feel welcome when dropping off and picking up their child from the centre, online learning stories (written observations and photographs shared with caregivers via an online system), and home visits.

3.3. Barriers—Capacity and Capability

Several barriers to supporting social and emotional skills were identified: a lack of time to focus on SEL, group size, educator capability, confidence and training, high staff turnover, difficulty engaging with families, perceived lack of recognition of the educator’s role, and a lack of consistency across services. Most respondents identified that time constraints and high educator-to-child ratio (in Australia, centre-based ratio requirements are as follows: birth to 24 months: 1:4, between 24 and 36 months: 1:4 or 1:5 depending on the state, over 36 months and up to preschool age: 1:10 or 1:11 depending on the state) negatively influenced educators’ ability to embed social and emotional learning. Several emphasised children need one-on-one time to work through emotions and challenges at the time they experience them, but this is often not possible due to competing priorities. Challenges associated with a perceived increased proportion of children attending ECEC services with additional or undiagnosed additional needs were identified. These included ensuring the service caters to the needs of all children, the time required to complete documentation to access additional support, and the risk of overlooking the needs of both children experiencing social, emotional, and behavioural difficulties as well as typically developing preschoolers.

Educator capability to nurture social and emotional skills was identified as a potential barrier in several interviews, with respondents acknowledging capability is shaped by preservice education and professional development, experience in different settings, time in the sector, and motivation. Two participants in ECEC leadership positions suggested a lack of confidence and self-esteem can influence educator practice, with one noting educators often develop attachments with children and will instinctually know how to support social and emotional skills but lack confidence and belief in the importance of their role. Gaps in educators’ skillset were also identified by a small number of respondents, specifically working with children experiencing social and emotional difficulty, and engaging with parents whom the educator may perceive as difficult to communicate with. Educator motivation to up-skill and explore the resources available, and their ability to be mindful and reflective in prioritisation of activities, was also noted as a potential barrier (e.g., what is most important to do for the child). Participants working directly with children did not specifically discuss their capability to attend training. A number of respondents suggested tertiary training programs needed to place greater emphasis on social and emotional competencies, and evidence-based approaches to translate concepts to effective practice.

Notwithstanding the importance of working in partnership with families, engaging with caregivers regarding children’s social and emotional development was emphasised as a significant challenge, particularly due to parental expectations. For example, a number of educators noted a disconnect between some parents’ focus on literacy and numeracy, compared to social and emotional development, which was described as the critical developmental focus from the educator perspective. Educators can find it difficult to communicate the value of SEL to parents, while being respectful of their culture and beliefs. One educator described a lack of interaction with parents as a barrier to learning more about their child. In addition, the complexity of working with parents of children who may be experiencing difficulties was noted, particularly when the educator perceived parents were not ready or able to engage in a dialogue or accept that their child may be having difficulty.

And a lot of families they don’t get it, that social and emotional is so important for school [it’s language and literacy] that if they’re not coping and they’re not managing at school just with their emotions and socially, they’re not going to be happy therefore they’re not going to learn and they don’t understand that [they don’t make that connection] [FG4]

Sometimes it’s hard to have that initial conversation with the parent, so you just have to know and understand what the family structure is about because you can’t sort of go in and go “your child’s got…”, you have be quite tactful [respectful]…One of the children in my room, it took me 12 months to have that conversation because it was never ever the right time and then one time it happened and I was there ready to go, you know [FG5]

Educators and other professionals identified an extensive range of programs to support SEL within preschool. The KidsMatter Early Childhood Framework [ 58 ] had been utilised by several participants. Other programs which centres were currently or had previously implemented included Animal Fun [ 59 ], 1-2-3 Magic [ 60 ], Circle of Security [ 61 ], PALS Program [ 62 ], and Early ABLES [ 63 ]. However, some highlighted the volume of programs available and increasing expectations placed upon educators meant programmatic approaches were less likely to be embedded and sustained within ECEC services over time:

…you know every couple of years there’s a revolution in childcare, everyone’s got a new idea and everyone’s got to implement the new idea and then you go back to 10 years ago, and go this worked then [FG4]

Two educators noted the approach to implementation was ad hoc, with classrooms within the same centre independently selecting certain components or themes each year. Another respondent (researcher) discussed the lack of clarity regarding what a high-quality SEL pedagogy looks like, suggesting if you asked a group of educators to describe the key elements of SEL, the key capabilities, progression, and pedagogies that support learning, you would likely receive different responses:

Educators can’t pick up a journal and see that example, a really well targeted description of what capabilities in SE look like, progression low to high, what effective pedagogy looks like, what effective measurement and clinical practice looks like [P10]

3.4. Strengthening Educator Skill—Building Knowledge through Practical Strategies

Participants identified a need for support that responds to the unique context and requirements of ECEC centres, aligned with the National Quality Standard and EYLF, and not requiring additional time or resources to implement. That is, resources that are accessible, easy to use, and can be embedded into daily practice and routines, as reflected in the following comment:

It needs to be something that’s easy to implement, that’s quickly accessible, that you can put into your program without having to think too much about it, so it naturally fits in, it links it with everything that’s already existing, it links with the NQS, it links with the EYLF, it links with all those things, but it’s not something else to learn, we don’t have to go oh my gosh, it’s another box we have to tick, it’s another thing we have to meet, it’s another criteria that has to be acknowledged in the program and then adding to it, it would be nice if it just fit nicely into the social and emotional area in everything [FG4]

Up-skilling educators in practical strategies and techniques that foster SEL was suggested by several participants, who noted that tools need to respond to the different ways educators build knowledge, considering sensory learning styles and delivery modalities, for example:

Educators always want practical stuff. Tell me how to do it, they like to have the information, but then give me the strategies, what do I have to do? So, practical stuff is really important, whether that’s conversation starters, actual sentences that you can use with children to support that, and I think video can be useful as well, just seeing how an educator does approach that kind of development in action is often, I think useful as well [E14]

Coaching and mentoring were highlighted as effective in building capability within ECEC classrooms. Two ECEC providers had implemented a mentoring program to nurture and develop educator practice, with participants noting more was needed. Increased opportunity to reflect, collaborate, and share knowledge with team members was suggested. Greater focus on explicit social and emotional skill instruction in addition to warm and responsive play, approaches tailored to the developmental stage of the child, and greater emphasis on collecting and interpreting data relating to child progress were also raised as mechanisms to strengthen educator practice and child outcomes.

4. Discussion

The current study examined ECEC professionals’ understanding of early social and emotional development, the practices and approaches that encourage children’s social and emotional skills, the enablers and barriers for early childhood educators in fostering skill growth, and the additional resources and support that could assist in this respect. The findings suggest children’s social and emotional development is at the forefront of educator planning, practice and reflection, supporting findings from similar research with early childhood educators in the United Kingdom [ 42 ], United States [ 41 , 43 , 64 ] and Singapore [ 65 ]. Participants unanimously endorsed the role of early childhood educators in fostering children’s social and emotional skills, in partnership with families, as the building block for healthy learning and development.

Social–emotional competence is a multifaceted concept based on emotional, cognitive, and behavioural knowledge and skill [ 66 ]. The current study suggests early childhood educators recognise this breadth and complexity of social–emotional skills, and the linkages that exist between social and emotional competencies. For example, several participants discussed the importance of the secure attachment that can form between an educator and child, and how this encourages the child to feel safe and explore the social world and provides a model for social interactions on which to build future relationships.

Participants described utilising a broad range of approaches to support children’s social and emotional development, which could be grouped into four categories: (1) nurturing and responsive educator–child relationships; (2) supporting SEL through everyday interactions and practice; (3) utilising the physical environment to encourage SEL; and (4) working in partnership with caregivers. Similar groupings have been reported by other researchers who have classified SEL strategies in early childhood settings. For example, O’Conner and colleagues [ 67 ] identified three classroom factors (beyond using a SEL curriculum) associated with social and emotional skill development for children aged three to eight years: positive classroom climate (modifying the physical space and materials, classroom management strategies and routines, and a supportive and emotionally positive environment), instructional strategies (modelling, reacting to, and instructing about children’s emotional expression) and teacher’s own social and emotional competence (supported through direct training, reflective supervision and relationship building, and stress-reduction strategies).

Educators in this study appeared to value and utilise programs and interventions to support SEL at the class-wide level, yet perceived embedding SEL into everyday interactions as the most effective way to foster children’s strengths and meet the unique needs of each child in the moment. Hollingsworth and Winter [ 43 ] similarly reported teachers foster prosocial skills by setting the tone of the social environment and responding to situations as they arose. This points to the potential utility of both universal class-wide SEL intervention in addition to fostering every child’s SEL through tailored and responsive supports embedded within interactions. Knowledge and insight from families was also recognised as vital for children’s SEL. Educators work with caregivers to understand the unique needs and context for each child, identify proactive, preventative, and early intervention strategies, and scaffold learning across home and service settings. In early childhood, family–child relationships are the primary source of learning experiences. SEL activities in the preschool environment can be reinforced and enhanced by enlisting families as partners in the overall SEL approach [ 28 , 68 ].

The findings of this research, however, indicated inconsistency across ECEC providers in the variety and type of strategies educators use to support social and emotional skill growth. There may be a lack of guidance on translating the EYLF into practice with regard to preschoolers’ social and emotional development. As a result, children’s exposure to high-quality interactions, strategies, and techniques that facilitate SEL is influenced by the knowledge, skill, and confidence of educators, and the culture, leadership, philosophy, and structural quality of each service, including educator-to-child ratio, space, resources, staff qualifications, programs, and curricula. This aligns with a recent exploration of Australian early childhood educators’ perceptions of the EYLF. This research reported educators are engaged with the content but seeking ways to transform the professional concepts embedded in the EYLF into their practice [ 69 ].

Teaching in early childhood is often characterised by continuous analyses of children’s understanding, and decisions about curriculum and pedagogy. This highlights the importance of understanding the knowledge educators draw on in their decision-making processes [ 70 ]. Regarding how educators understood and conceptualised social and emotional development, and how they perceived they supported children’s social and emotional skills, participants in this study appeared to draw on both explicit and tacit knowledge. Explicit knowledge refers to objective and rational knowledge that can be easily transferred through words and sentences [ 71 ]. It is knowledge that educators are consciously aware that they are using and that can be documented and communicated—for example, the EYLF, manualised SEL programs, and the step-by-step description of strategies where educators could clearly articulate why they were using the approach and the desired outcome for children. Tacit knowledge, by contrast, is personal and subjective, relating to the mental models, values, beliefs, perceptions, insights, and assumptions that educators form when working with children and families over time [ 72 , 73 ]. This knowledge may be more difficult to transfer to others. Across several interviews, educators suggested their practice was based in their knowledge and relationships with children, but they found it challenging to describe the specific strategies and techniques applied, which may reflect their tacit knowledge base.

Making educator knowledge explicit is critical to support teacher learning [ 74 ]; however, research indicates much teacher knowledge is implicit and not articulated [ 75 ]. Reliance on tacit knowledge also limits the opportunity to replicate high-quality, evidence-based practice across settings. The findings of this study highlight that although social–emotional development is a priority for early years professionals, there is inconsistency in training and application of support to enable this to occur. ECEC professionals seek practical strategies that will support them to strengthen children’s social and emotional skills through their everyday interactions and practice. Building upon educators’ practical (tacit) knowledge through the provision of explicit, documented techniques tailored to the breadth of strengths and needs within the room could allow educators to integrate formal learning with personal experience. More could also be done to assist educators in connecting with families to foster social–emotional development within the home environment.

5. Study Limitations

There are several limitations to this study. First, it relied on a convenience sample. While the authors invited educators from several different ECEC providers and included non-teaching ECEC professionals to validate the findings, these cannot be generalised, as is the nature of qualitative research. This approach was, however, appropriate to address the research aims, representing the perspectives of the participants, and feasible within the time and resourcing constraints of the study. Second, the research methodology included both in-depth interviews and focus group discussions. Recognising it would have been preferrable to individually interview all participants, this format was most feasible for participants, and a pragmatic decision to integrate both methods was made. Furthermore, this research focused on educators’ perceptions of supporting children’s social and emotional development in the ECEC environment. This is important because educators’ perceptions and judgments affect teaching practice. However, it is not possible to draw conclusions regarding their actual practices and behaviour. It would be beneficial to conduct observations of educators in the early learning classroom to better understand what teachers do in practice. Finally, while this study provides insights on the perspectives of Australian ECEC professionals, we did not explicitly explore how participants’ beliefs and practices were informed by either their own cultural background, or the cultural background of children in their care. While beyond the scope of the current study, this would be valuable to consider in future research.

6. Conclusions

This study adds to the literature through its focus on how the Australian ECEC sector approaches SEL in preschool classrooms. Aligned to the EYLF, ECEC professionals uniformly conceptualised children’s social and emotional skills as critical to ongoing development and a primary focus for the sector. However, findings suggest the breadth of strategies and techniques to support this development vary across organisations, influenced by a range of factors including structural quality, educator knowledge, skill and confidence, and qualifications and experience. Educators acknowledge trial and error is necessary in early years settings, and an approach that works for one child may not have the same impact or benefit for the next. Attention towards ensuring all children receive the type of interactions that will support positive social and emotional outcomes is warranted. Strengthening knowledge through a variety of explicit and practical strategies that can be embedded into daily practice was recommended by participants. These findings will inform the development of a pedagogical intervention to promote SEL and positive mental health in preschool classrooms and may offer valuable insights to support the pedagogical practices championed in Australian early learning policy.

Acknowledgments

The research team wishes to express their sincere gratitude to all participants, including early childhood educators, ECEC leaders, researchers and other professionals who took part in this research study and shared their valuable insights and experiences.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/4/1530/s1 , Table S1: Interview Guide.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, C.B., H.S., H.M., A.N., and A.O.; methodology, C.B., H.S., H.M., A.N., A.O., and R.G.; investigation: C.B., H.S., H.M., and A.O.; validation, C.B., H.S., and A.O.; formal analysis, C.B., H.S., and A.O.; writing—original draft preparation, C.B.; writing—review and editing, C.B., H.S., H.M., A.N., A.O., R.G., K.J., A.I., and A.M.; supervision, H.S., H.M., A.N., A.M., and K.J.; project administration, C.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethics approval to conduct the study was granted by the Deakin University Human Ethics Advisory Group- Health (ID: 39_2017).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Meta-thematic analysis of quality in early childhood education and care

• Mehmet Sağlam   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1784-4472 1 ,
• Osman Tayyar Çelik 1 ,
• Yunus Tunç 2 ,
• Ümit Kahraman 3 ,
• Davut Açar 4 &
• Burcu Candemir   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5687-0756 5  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  10 , Article number:  966 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

1569 Accesses

2 Citations

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Development studies

Quality in early childhood education and care (ECEC) has drawn the attention of researchers and practitioners due to its correlation with positive individual, societal, and economic results. In ECEC, however, there is no consensus on quality metrics. This meta-thematic study seeks to provide a framework for quality indicators in ECEC and to identify the contextual factors that influence the perception of quality. The study’s data source comprises 14 published papers conducted in 11 countries using qualitative or mixed methods on quality in ECEC. As a consequence of the analysis, 16 early childhood education and care quality indicators were identified. As a result of the second-level studies, the underlying or associated syntheses in the ECEC quality indicators were uncovered. These include child-centeredness, teacher qualifications, culture and atmosphere of the ECEC center, holistic development, and leadership. In addition, it was concluded that cultural values and beliefs, the centralization degree of the education system, and the expectations of stakeholders are contextual elements that influence the quality and perceptions of quality in ECEC.

Similar content being viewed by others

Parents’ ratings of post-discharge healthcare for their children born very preterm and their suggestions for improvement: a European cohort study

World-wide barriers and enablers to achieving evidence-informed practice in education: what can be learnt from Spain, England, the United States, and Germany?

Research recommendations for assessing potential harm from universal school-based mental health interventions

Introduction.

The first years of a child’s life are crucial for the development of cognitive, social–emotional, and physical skills. Intervention programs, a supportive environment, and quality education improve children’s short- and long-term development (Brodin et al., 2015 ; Davis et al., 2021 ; UNICEF, 2017 ; Vandenbroeck et al., 2018 ). Early childhood education and care (ECEC), which involves planned and programmed procedures consistent with the policy objectives of countries, aims to achieve positive results for children, families, and society. Quality ECEC has significant effects on children from disadvantaged areas to achieve high occupational status and attend school (Ishimine, 2011 ; Kagitcibasi et al., 2009 ), support children’s learning and development (Eadie et al., 2022 ; Wysłowska and Slot, 2020 ), and prepare them for the next level of education (Karademir et al., 2017 ). Additionally, ECEC advantages are not limited to children. ECEC helps to the labor force participation of women, a reduction in crime rates, and a more harmonious social structure (Vandenbroeck et al., 2018 ). Due to these advantages, the problem of quality in ECEC has rightfully attracted the attention of scholars, many nations, and international organizations like UNESCO and OECD.

Previous studies have demonstrated that high-quality early childhood education influences the well-being and academic success of children. This has generated international interest in measuring the quality of early childhood education and creating policy goals for education and care services (Ishimine and Tayler, 2014 ). The principle of “providing that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care, and services” has been added to the global development agenda of the United Nations (UN) member states by the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which came into effect in 2015 (UNICEF, 2017 ). Today, most communities are searching for methods to provide a qualified education for their children (Rosenthal, 2003 ). However, there is no consensus on how to accomplish this. Countries seek to attain quality education and care service quality standards, sometimes by modifying national policies and sometimes by enhancing the quality of institutions and procedures (Eadie et al., 2022 ; Rosenthal, 2003 ). However, the answers to the questions below are still being sought: “What is quality in early childhood education and care? Which elements comprise quality? What are the most crucial quality factors affecting children’s learning and development?”

To attain quality ECEC services, it is necessary to define quality factors from the viewpoints of all stakeholders and establish how these elements interact and how they mediate quality services (Sollars, 2020a ). Numerous qualitative and quantitative studies examine the quality of ECEC services from the viewpoints of a variety of stakeholders (Caublot and Blicharski, 2016 ; Grammatikopoulos et al., 2014 ; Hu et al., 2017 ). Despite the fact that there is consensus on a number of quality factors in ECEC services, such as educational curriculum, quality of teacher–child interactions, and physical conditions, a common understanding of quality has not yet been established. It is believed that contextual conditions and their influence on quality elements make it challenging to objectively evaluate quality in early childhood education (Brodin et al., 2015 ; Eadie et al., 2022 ). Although cultural values, norms, and beliefs influence the meaning assigned to quality in ECEC, it is necessary to construct models that incorporate quality factors and their interactions with contextual conditions. In this context, the purpose of this study is to synthesize the findings of research on quality in ECEC based on stakeholder perspectives in order to comprehend the quality elements by taking context into consideration.

Quality in early childhood education and care

There are several interpretations of the term quality. According to Sallis there are four fundamental definitions of quality (cited in Şimşek, 2018 ). Initially, the first definition identifies quality with the adjectives “expensive” and “luxury.” The second definition defines quality as a relative characteristic. According to this viewpoint, quality is a characteristic attributed to a product or service based on specified criteria. While the third viewpoint evaluates whether the manufacturing procedures of the product or service adhere to particular criteria, the fourth perspective prioritizes the customer’s values and opinions with regard to quality. When the last three perspectives are evaluated in terms of ECEC, the variety of customers (child, family, society, and state), the value-laden character of educational processes and the difficulty in establishing the quality of educational outputs make it challenging to define quality. In addition, efforts are continuing to define quality in ECEC from several viewpoints.

Numerous research studies have attempted to develop a framework for defining quality in ECEC based on the basic elements influencing quality. Components of quality evaluated in these studies include student ratios, class size, teacher behavior, collaboration with parents, teacher quality, leadership and administration, physical environment, and curriculum (Sewagegn et al., 2022 ; Sheridan, 2007 ; Textor, 1998 ). Nevertheless, it is also possible to articulate multidimensional approaches to quality in ECEC using more comprehensive models. These models are based on ecological theory, learning theory, attachment theory, the sociocultural approach, the systems approach, and structure and process approaches that emphasize on quality features (Burchinal, 2018 ; Caublot and Blicharski, 2016 ; Eadie et al., 2022 ; Vandell and Wolfe, 2000 ). Ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 2006 ) places the child at the center and examines the influence of many systems and their interaction on the quality of life (Burchinal, 2018 ; Davis et al., 2021 ). Consequently, it offers information on the location of quality inputs to prioritize. Attachment theory and sociocultural approach (Vygotsky, 1978 ) attempt to explain the quality of ECEC within the context of children’s interactions with their immediate surroundings. Torii et al. ( 2017 ), while defining quality in ECEC, describe system quality as a different area. System quality includes elements such as funding, service standards, governance, and regulatory standards.

Structural and process approaches are the most prevalent methods of measuring quality in ECEC. Structural factors include more readily measured qualities including the physical environment of ECEC, teacher–child ratios, safety, staff qualifications, and curriculum (Bennett and Tayler, 2006 ; Ishimine and Tayler, 2014 ; Pihlainen et al., 2022 ). Interactions between children, staff, and families, pedagogical techniques, and children’s experiences in ECEC settings are process factors (Burchinal, 2018 ; Pihlainen et al., 2022 ). As they consist of visible components, structural characteristics are very simple to measure. However, process factors are difficult to measure since they comprise dispersed and comparatively more subjective factors. Indeed, Ishimine ( 2011 ) claimed that more in-depth observations are required to evaluate the quality of a process. Although structural and process factors have a symbiotic relationship (Sollars, 2020a ), the links between structure and process quality have not always been strong and consistent (Slot et al., 2015 ). In general, ECEC quality models are limited in their ability to comprehend structural quality and system-level practices since they focus primarily on the quality of process components. Moreover, contextual conditions have been neglected in several approaches.

Contextual conditions are an essential component of quality discussions in ECEC. Context may include cultural variations, child-rearing values, country-specific policy objectives, and stakeholder priorities. Ikegami and Agbenyega ( 2014 ) argue that a monolithic approach to quality in ECEC fails to respond to the needs of children in different contexts and does not provide a comprehensive understanding of quality, whereas Zaslow et al. ( 2011 ) argue that quality is value-laden because it is based on the perspective of researchers and practitioners. The notion of quality care or education is derived from each cultural community’s cultural values and developmental goals (Rosenthal, 2003 ). In other words, cultural values and beliefs influence the expected objectives of education and care, the methods used to achieve these objectives, and the interactions that occur during the process. Consequently, the conception of quality is likewise shaped by the values that are given priority. In support of this approach, research from the United Kingdom, Germany, and New Zealand indicates that parents and preschool teachers have a basic understanding of quality child care, despite varying emphases (Textor, 1998 ). Fenech et al. ( 2020 ) revealed that quality is complex, multidimensional, and value-laden, whereas Caublot and Blicharski ( 2016 ) proved that quality in ECEC is not a generally applicable concept.

Although research that emphasizes contextual conditions indicates the difficulty of evaluating quality in ECEC, attempts to create assessment tools for quality measurement in ECEC have continued for decades. Several quality observation metrics have been created in the previous two decades, particularly in the United States (for measurement tools, see Ishimine, and Tayler, 2014 ). However, due to cultural bias, it is emphasized that the validity of measurement tools established in various nations should be questioned when used on a different population (Ishimine and Tayler, 2014 ; Rosenthal, 1999 ). In 2014, UNESCO, UNICEF, the World Bank, and the Centre for Universal Education at the Brookings Institution began to develop a quality measurement tool for early childhood education and care (ECEC) in order to develop measures with scientifically based elements that would allow both individual assessment and global monitoring for each country. The developed Measuring Early Learning Quality and Outcomes (MELQO) includes two dimensions, child development and learning, the early learning environment, and sub-dimensions within these dimensions. The child development and learning dimension comprises executive function, social and emotional development, early math and reading abilities, and early social and emotional development. The early learning environment consists of environment and materials, interactions, pedagogy, family and community participation, inclusivity, play, and personnel (UNESCO, UNICEF, Brookings Institution & the World Bank, 2017). Despite continuous research on the validity and reliability of the MELQO, further evidence is required at the national and international levels.

Purpose and importance

There are many arguments in favor of a consensus-based definition of quality in ECEC and the identification of critical features. First, defining quality-based feedback metrics at the system level is important. Second, establishing policy objectives through national assessments and international comparisons requires comparable criteria. In reality, OECD efforts to evaluate ECEC services in several countries (TALIS Starting Strong) have gained momentum (OECD, 2019 ). Thirdly, establishing the right quality criteria results in focusing on these criteria and, consequently, quality outcomes.

Katz ( 1993 ) suggested four perspectives for evaluating quality. The perspectives include those of the parent, the child, the professional and researcher, and ultimately, the staff. On the basis of these viewpoints, several research on the definitions and components of quality have been conducted. This research has shown the challenge of establishing a standardized framework for quality, particularly owing to contextual factors. However, despite the fact that quality is a very subjective notion, certain factors may be more important for good quality (Brodin et al., 2015 ). In addition, although there are cultural and national expectations for which method should be used and what children should know, this does not imply that ECEC would promote norms that violate children’s rights (Banu, 2014 ) and characteristics and practices with little impact. Instead, we believe that it would be more practical to identify quality characteristics in ECEC by taking the context into account. Within this framework, we sought answers to the following questions by synthesizing qualitative studies on quality in ECEC.

Which quality characteristics are most commonly emphasized by various stakeholder perspectives?

What contextual factors influence the perception of quality in ECEC?

Numerous qualitative studies have addressed the topic of quality in ECEC based on the perspectives of various stakeholders. In order to provide a holistic view by analyzing the outcomes of these studies in depth, we used a qualitative research strategy in this study. In this context, we conducted a meta-thematic analysis of a few qualitative research addressing the topic of quality in ECEC. Meta-thematic analysis is the reinterpretation of the findings and conclusions of qualitative investigations done on a particular issue using raw data (participant views), developing new codes and themes, and achieving more complete and holistic knowledge (Batdı, 2019 ). In other words, the purpose of meta-thematic analysis is to generate new hypotheses by combining the results of qualitative research on a particular issue. The purpose of this paper is to present a holistic viewpoint by compiling research results focusing on a certain question or practice.

Determination of studies and collection of data

The process stages described in the literature (Konan et al., 2018 ; Noblitt and Hare, 1988 ) were followed in order to determine the studies to be included in the meta-thematic analysis (see Fig. 1 ). Depending on the topic and objective of the research, studies addressing quality in ECEC were focussed. Before determining the keywords for the search, a researcher analyzed and identified the keywords of 20 relevant papers, and the researchers then determined the most suitable search terms together. In this context, the keywords “quality in early childhood education,” “quality in early childhood education and care,” “quality in preschool education,” “structural quality in early childhood education,” and “process quality in early childhood education” were searched on the Web of Science, ERIC, Scopus, and EBSCO databases. As a result of this search, 332 studies were identified. A set of inclusion criteria was established for the selection of research-relevant papers. (1) The studies should focus on the quality of early childhood education. (2) The studies should be published in English or Turkish in peer-reviewed international publications. (3) The studies should employ qualitative or mixed approaches. (4) The study findings must be supported by raw data.

Procedure steps for studies to be included in meta-thematic analysis.

Two researchers individually reviewed each study based on the inclusion criteria. In addition, the researchers documented the criteria by which the excluded studies were eliminated. All researchers then assessed the notes of two researchers. In cases where there was a disagreement of opinion, the studies were reexamined, and a consensus was reached on whether or not to include them. At the end of the evaluation process, it was determined to include 14 research (see Table 1 ) in the meta-thematic analysis. However, due to the fact that meta-thematic analysis needs in-depth re-examination and combining of current studies, it is advised to perform such research with a small number of studies (Batdı, 2019 ; Bondas and Hall, 2007 ).

Summary of studies included in the meta-thematic analysis

In this section, information on the included studies is presented. The meta-thematic study includes fourteen studies published between 2014 and 2022 and conducted in different regions of the world (see Table 1 ). The research was done in eleven distinct countries. Two articles were conducted in Malta, two in Australia, two in the United States of America, two in Turkey, two in Finland, one in Japan, one in Bangladesh, one in Tanzania, one in Lesotho, one in Ghana, and one in Spain. Ten studies focused directly on the quality of early childhood education based on the perspectives of stakeholders; one study focused on the negative experiences of children (Pihlainen et al., 2022 ), one study focused on the problems experienced by stakeholders (Çobanoğlu et al., 2020 ), one study focused on educational philosophy (Ikegami and Agbbenyega, 2014 ), and one study focused on quality through children’s happy experiences (Rodríguez-Carrillo et al., 2020 ). The included studies examined early childhood education quality from a variety of angles. Six studies assessed the quality of early childhood education from the framework of structure and process, three from the framework of ecological systems, four from the framework of socio-cultural, and one from the framework of the process.

In thirteen of the fourteen studies included in the meta-thematic analysis, qualitative research methods were employed, while one study employed a mixed methodology. Seven of these articles were case studies, four were phenomenological, one was comparative, and two were interpretive. Teachers, parents, school administrators, center owners, caregivers, supervisors, government stakeholders, and children comprised the study participants.

Data analysis

The most significant element of qualitative research is qualitative data (Korkmazyürek, 2020 ). This study’s qualitative data consists of participant comments, findings, and outcomes from the included studies. For the study of qualitative data, we adopted an inductive analysis strategy that allows the formation of significant structures from small data samples (Strauss and Corbin, 1990 ).

In the first stage, the included studies were analyzed using the content analysis method by two researchers independently reviewing each study in depth. Content analysis requires an in-depth investigation of the acquired data and permits the development of themes and dimensions that were not previously apparent (Yıldırım and Şimşek, 2021 ). Content analysis was performed manually, and new codes were developed. Due to the cyclical nature of the coding procedure (Saldana, 2011 ), the included papers were reviewed three times by two researchers to prevent data loss. In order to generate a whole from the codes, syntheses and themes were created in the second stage. The procedure of developing themes was also separately conducted by two researchers. In the last stage, a meeting was organized with the involvement of all researchers to compare and assess the themes and codes. In situations where there was disagreement over themes and codes, a consensus was obtained by soliciting the input of all scholars. As a consequence of the examination of the themes and codes at this stage, researchers developed an abstract generalization and second-level syntheses.

Despite the fact that there is no consensus among researchers on the validity and reliability in qualitative research (Çelik and Kahraman, 2021 ), some measures were taken as a requirement of the procedures that assure the validity and reliability of qualitative research. Initially, the study selection, coding, and theme generation methods were documented in detail, and the included papers were made publicly available (see Table 1 ). Second, researcher triangulation was performed, and coding and thematization were conducted by various researchers and assessed and determined with the involvement of all researchers. Thirdly, in order to assure interpretative validity, the research’s syntheses were supported by other research findings in the literature. To establish plausibility of the research, the meta-thematic analysis’ resulting syntheses were supported with direct quotations from the relevant papers.

In this section, the findings related to the first research question are given first. Table 2 displays the codes produced from the research included in the meta-thematic analysis, the themes derived from these codes, and the second-level interpretations/syntheses.

Elements of quality (Themes)

The study themes identify the characteristics of quality that should be prioritized in early childhood education. In addition, the codes associated with the themes indicate how the content of quality elements should be constructed. In addition, the themes are associated with the studies included in the research in Appendix A .

Professional competence of teachers

In twelve of the included studies, teachers’ professional competence was addressed directly or indirectly as an important component of quality factor impacting quality when the themes were analyzed. According to an analysis of the codes, the desired characteristics of practitioners within the scope of competence include pedagogical competence, communication skills, qualification certificates, and other certifications.

Interaction with children

In nine included research, interaction with children as a quality component of early childhood education was examined. In this research, the importance of valuing, appreciating, respecting, and encouraging children as indicators of quality interaction was emphasized. Not only teachers are required to engage in such interactions, but also the qualified interaction of school administrators, specialists, and all personnel with students is deemed to be an indicator of quality.

Physical conditions and opportunities

Physical conditions and opportunities were evaluated as quality criteria in nine included studies. In terms of the physical conditions, different activity areas, structures that would draw the child’s interest and attention, and their being practical for the child were emphasized.

In-school relationships and shared values

This theme refers to the values, beliefs and behaviors shared by all stakeholders in the school, including teachers, administrators, children, families and other employees in their interactions with each other. Eight codes and findings directly or indirectly belonging to this theme were included in the study. While the theme of interaction with children refers only to the quality of interaction between children and other employees, this theme emphasizes the shared values between all stakeholders and how relationships should be.

In-school policies and procedures

As quality indicators, procedures and practices inside of the school, such as lunch break, hygiene, school entrance and exit rules, communication and information sharing procedures, and security, were examined in the studies included in the research. Indicators related to this theme were included in eight research studies.

Family support and communication

As quality indicators, the studies included in the analysis examined the quality of communication with families, communication procedures, family participation and practices supporting family participation, and ECEC awareness. In seven research studies, family support and communication behaviors were included as indicators of quality ECEC.

Educational outcomes

Indicators for educational outcomes in the context of quality ECEC were highlighted in seven of the included research. Educational outcomes refer to the development of children in several areas following ECEC. The expectations for educational results are not affected by stakeholder perspectives. Although diverse developmental areas of children, such as cognitive, linguistic, and psychomotor development, are emphasized, studies mostly highlight outcomes for social and emotional development.

Professional development of teachers

Professional development was another important theme stated in the analyzed papers pertaining to teachers. In six research, cooperation networks, mentorship, and continuous professional development were included in the definition of teacher professional development.

Teaching-learning process

Six studies included quality elements pertaining to how the teaching-learning process should be in a quality ECEC. Indicators of a successful ECEC teaching-learning process include sensory-appropriate activities, child-centered activities, teaching through play, learning by doing, activities that will expose children’s creativity, and approaches appropriate to children’s interests and abilities.

Six studies directly included curriculum features for quality in ECEC. In general, the features sought in the curriculum for a quality ECEC are as follows: flexible, play-based, consisting of structured and unstructured activities, taking into account individual needs, and being designed based on holistic development.

Qualifications of school administrators

Five studies highlighted the qualifications of school administrators as an indicator of ECEC quality. The study identified the most desired attributes for school administrators as sharing, staff support, and leadership.

Personal characteristics of teachers

In the studies included in the study, the personal characteristics of teachers were also identified as a quality element associated with teachers. Teachers’ personal characteristics have been examined in four studies. These are the characteristics that can impact the quality of teacher-child relationships. Attitudes, sensitivity, compassion, friendliness, caring, and their belief in education are some of the personal characteristics of teachers.

This theme relates to the diverse staff qualities and student-teacher ratios that should be present in ECEC. In three research, these theme-related findings were included within the scope of quality. Personnel indicators for a qualified ECEC include the presence of classroom aides, branch teachers, and specialists, and adequate teacher-to-student ratios.

Classroom atmosphere

In the three studies included in the analysis, classroom atmosphere-related findings were present. The classroom atmosphere theme contains indicators of how the classroom environment should influence student relationships with their peers and the teacher. Positive learning environment and peer interactions, classroom rules, and warm relationships indicate an open, friendly, and supportive classroom atmosphere for a qualified ECEC.

Philosophy of education

Educational philosophy is another factor that affects ECEC quality. Indirectly or directly, indicators relevant to this theme were included in two studies. Although educational philosophy is described as a quality factor in two studies, it is also a crucial factor in determining the curriculum, children’s learning outcomes, and the fundamental structure of educational processes. Child’s liberation, a strategy based on love, and child welfare characterize the educational philosophy of a quality ECEC.

Central policies and practices

In addition, central policies and practices play a significant effect in the quality of ECEC. The outcomes associated with these policies and practices are included in two studies. In this context, it was established that teacher salaries appropriate to the conditions of the age, professional development practices, informing the public, and establishing and adhering to a national curriculum are quality indicators in the framework of central policies and practices.

Seecond-level interpretations/syntheses

This section contains the syntheses derived by reinterpreting the codes and themes. These interpretations contain both syntheses of the fundamental characteristics of the themes and syntheses of other themes. In this context, the following five syntheses were identified: qualified teacher, child-centredness, culture and atmosphere of ECEC center, holistic development, and leadership.

Teacher qualifications

Teacher qualifications refer to the attributes that ECEC teachers should possess. In this context, the professional competency, personal characteristics, and professional development efforts of teachers stand out as significant factors of teacher qualifications. Professional competency affects the extent to which teachers support teaching practices and learning opportunities for children (Burchinal, 2018 ). Teachers’ personal characteristics are more related to the quality of teacher-child interactions and emotional support. These characteristics are also important in establishing and maintaining warm, supportive relationships (Fenech et al., 2020 ), which are important for children’s well-being and the development of positive emotions (Sollars, 2020a , 2022b ). Professional development is another factor associated with teacher qualifications. The impact of teachers’ professional development on ECEC quality is indirect (Pihlainen et al., 2022 ). Teachers’ awareness of current research, ideas, and methods enhances the quality of the process (Chappell and Szenteb, 2019 ). Participation in professional development activities by teachers is a structural factor that substantially predicts the quality of the educational process (Slot et al., 2015 ).

Child-centredness

Child-centredness suggests a method embedded in the vast majority of quality components. Child-centredness emphasizes a child-centered approach in interactions with children, the setup of physical conditions, school policies and practices, the teaching-learning process, and the creation of a positive classroom environment based on the curriculum and educational philosophy. Context mostly affects which topics will be child-centered. In Chappell and Szente’s ( 2019 ) study, American teachers emphasized the significance of listening to children’s interests to guide the activities and encourage learning themes, whereas Finnish teachers viewed child-centredness as allowing children to make their own choices. In contrast, studies conducted in countries with a high degree of centralization in education (Banu, 2014 ) emphasized memorization of course material and a teacher-centered approach rather than child-centered activities.

Culture and atmosphere of ECEC

ECEC culture and atmosphere refers to all stakeholders’ common values, beliefs, norms, and rules that direct their interactions. Relationships with families and intra-school relationships as quality indicators are closely associated with ECEC culture and atmosphere. The development of collaborative practices between parents and educators is dependent on a culture that has been built and developed over time. Quality ECEC has been related to an ECEC culture and atmosphere that encourages positive interactions and assures parents’ sense of school affiliation (Clarke-Stewart and Allhusen, 2005 ; Ishimine, 2011 ). A positive ECEC culture and atmosphere also allow children to feel safe and comfortable (Chappell and Szente, 2019 ; Rodrguez-Carrillo et al., 2020 ).

Holistic development

The outcomes of ECEC in terms of child development are referred to as holistic development. Holistic development refers to the growth of a child in all aspects, including social, emotional, mental, physical, language and speech, and character, but the emphasis varies depending on the context. Indeed, quality early childhood care and education is holistic, as it is not confined to teaching children merely literacy and numeracy (Sewagegn et al., 2022 ). While considering the overall development of the child at a quality ECEC, it is crucial to organize appropriate educational programs and activities for each child based on his or her interests and talents (Chappell and Szenteb, 2019 ; Fenech et al., 2020 ; Ishimine, 2011 ; Karademir et al., 2017 ).

Leadership is a synthesis based on the attributed ECEC management characteristics. The desired qualities of ECEC leaders, such as vision, facilitation, and support, as well as understanding, highlight the significance of leadership for quality. Although leadership is not discussed as a theme in the included research articles, it is seen as a significant factor in the desired quality of other quality factors (Sollars, 2022b ; Karademir et al., 2017 ). In addition, Fenech et al. ( 2020 ) claim that ECEC leaders enhance staff leadership by creating microatmospheres (Table 3 ).

Contextual factors

This section presents syntheses of contextual factors influencing quality and perceptions of quality in ECEC. These are cultural values and beliefs, the degree of centralization of the education system, and the expectations of stakeholders. The explanations for these syntheses are provided below.

Cultural values and beliefs

The importance of cultural values and beliefs in affecting the perceptions and assessments of people and shaping the social structure cannot be underestimated. Since social structures and institutions are embedded in a system surrounded by culture, the quality and quality elements of the Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) environment influence the expected goals of education and care, the methods for achieving these goals, and the interactions involved in the process based on cultural values and beliefs. In other words, culture contributes to the formation of high-quality discourses, and quality is shaped by the values that are given importance (Davis et al., 2021 ; Rosenthal, 2003 ; Tobin, 2005 ). In collectivist civilizations, values relating to solidarity, social cohesiveness, and sharing are prioritized, whereas, in individualist societies, competition and self-actualization are prioritized.

In the studies we included in the analysis, the points emphasized in the quality discourses in ECEC vary depending on cultural values. In the study by Bamezor et al. ( 2021 ), the duty of a good parent is defined by society as protecting their children from harm and ensuring their safety. Similarly, a quality ECEC was associated with keeping children safe and protecting them. Banu’s ( 2014 ) study also confirmed the impact of post-colonial cultural changes on the perception of quality in ECEC. Brodin et al. ( 2015 ) investigated ECEC quality in Austria, Bulgaria, and Sweden and found that although there were similarities, there were also differences in practitioners’ interpretation of quality. In conclusion, cultural values and beliefs are important factors to influence what should be given importance and how tasks should be fulfilled in ECEC.

Degree of centralization in the educational system

Despite the fact that the education system is related to cultural values and beliefs, the centralization of the education system can influence a variety of factors, including educational goals and teaching techniques. Centralized education systems are associated with excessive control, standardization, and uniformity (Erdoğan, 2014 ).

In Banu’s ( 2014 ) study, teachers in Bangladesh described the quality of ECEC as increased academic performance, enrollment in better schools, and a teacher-centered teaching technique owing to the centralized education system. Moreover, in centralized education systems, rather than flexible curricula, there is a strict curriculum with clear boundaries, and teachers are required to conduct standard activities and teach standard materials in accordance with this curriculum. In a research conducted by Ishimine ( 2011 ) in Australia, where there is less centralization, it was found that the curriculum’s adaptability allows instructors to make modifications according to the needs of students. Consequently, the degree of centralization in the education systems influences the curriculum’s flexibility and the degree to which education procedures are structured.

Expectations of stakeholders

What makes quality in ECEC varies based on many stakeholders’ personal values, objectives, and perspectives. From the teacher’s perspective, teacher salaries, society’s view of ECEC and teachers (Chappelle and Szenteb, 2019 ; Sewagegn et al., 2022 ), regular feedback to families (Sollars, 2020a ), a teacher who respects children and children’s culture (Rodrguez-Carrillo et al., 2020 ), and age-appropriate fun activities for school leaders (Sollars, 2022b ) can be considered as indicators of a quality ECEC. Consequently, it may be stated that quality evaluation in ECEC differs based on its stakeholders’ needs, beliefs, and priorities.

Conclusion and discussion

The study aimed to synthesize prior qualitative studies on quality in early childhood care and education (ECEC), to identify the most important quality characteristics, and to determine which contextual factors influence ECEC quality. The study established 16 quality factors for early childhood care and education. These include the following: professional competence of teachers, interaction with children, physical conditions and opportunities, in-school relationships and shared values, in-school policies and practices, family support and communication, educational outcomes, professional development of teachers, teaching-learning process, curriculum, quality of school administrators, personal characteristics of teachers, personnel, classroom atmosphere, educational philosophy, central policies, and practices. These variables are consistent with the quality standards established in the literature for ECEC centers (NAEYC, 2019 ; Torii et al., 2017 ; UNESCO, UNICEF, Brookings Institution, and the World Bank, 2017 ). This research provides a complete framework for the quality factors in ECEC since it comprises a synthesis of studies that analyze the perspectives of many stakeholders.

Another outcome of the research is the synthesis of several quality elements. Five syntheses were discovered in this context: child-centeredness, teacher qualifications, culture and atmosphere of the ECEC center, holistic development, and leadership. These syntheses are related directly or indirectly to one or more ECEC quality factors. Child-centeredness, for instance, implies that the physical environment, interaction with children, and in-school policies and practices are child-centered, whereas teacher qualifications are a synthesis referring to teachers’ professional competence, personal characteristics, and professional development efforts. The study indicated that cultural values and beliefs, the degree of centralization of the education system, and stakeholder expectations are contextual elements that impact quality and perceptions of quality in early childhood education and care (ECEC). Although stakeholders’ expectations influence the social and cultural framework and the perception of quality, this does not mean that these viewpoints or societal expectations are always accurate. Therefore, objectives and practices that violate children’s rights (Banu, 2014 ), do not consider child welfare, or do not contribute to quality outcomes cannot be considered quality elements.

Limitations

As with every research, this study has some limitations. In this connection, the limitation of our research is that the meta-thematic analysis only included publications written in English or Turkish. In addition, there is a lack of qualitative or mixed-methods research on quality with some stakeholders, such as ECEC leaders, so these studies were not included.

Data availability

Information about the data used is given in the article

Banu MS (2014) Teachers’ beliefs and perceptions of quality preschool education in Bangladesh: a postcolonial analysis. Australas J Early Child 39(4):37–44

Article   Google Scholar  

Batdı V (2019) Meta-tematik analiz: örnek uygulamalar. Anı Yayıncılık, Ankara

Google Scholar  

Bamezor BLA, Quaicoe T, Forkuor JB, Azumah FD (2021) Exploring stakeholder perceptions of quality early childhood education in private day care centers in Ghana: A qualitative approach. Educ Res Int 2021:1–10

Bennett J, Tayler C (2006) Starting strong II. Early childhood education and care. OECD Publishing

Bondas T, Hall EO (2007) Challenges in approaching metasynthesis research. Qual health res 17(1):113–121

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Brodin J, Hollerer L, Renblad K, Stancheva-Popkostadinova V (2015) Preschool teachers’ understanding of quality in preschool: a comparative study in three European countries. Early Child Dev Care 185(6):968–981

Bronfenbrenner U, Morris PA (2006) The bioecological model of human development. In: Lerner RM, Damon W (eds) Handbook of child psychology: theoretical models of human development. pp. 793–828

Burchinal M (2018) Measuring early care and education quality. Child Dev Perspect 12(1):3–9

Caublot M, Blicharski T (2016) Social representation of quality in early childhood education in Toulouse. Psychol Fr 61(2):103–120

Clarke-Stewart A, Allhusen VD (2005) What we know about childcare. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

Book   Google Scholar  

Çelik OT, ve Kahraman Ü (2021) Göreve yeni başlayan öğretmenlerin yaşadıkları güçlükler. Pamukkale Üniv Eğitim Fak Derg 51:179–205

Chappell J, Szente J (2019) International teacher perspectives on quality in ECE: A case study. Int J Whole Child 4(2):27–42

Çobanoğlu R, Yıldırım A, Aydın YÇ (2020) Okul öncesi eğitimin niteliğine bir bakış: Aileler, öğretmenler ve çalışma koşulları ile ilgili sorunlar. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Derg 8(2):407–430

Davis D, Miller D, Mrema D, Matsoai M, Mapetla N, Raikes A, Burton A (2021) Understanding perceptions of quality among early childhood education stakeholders in Tanzania and Lesotho: a multiple qualitative case study. Soc Sci Humanit Open 4(1):100153

Eadie P, Page J, Levickis P, Elek C, Murray L, Wang L, Lloyd-Johnsen C (2022) Domains of quality in early childhood education and care: a scoping review of the extent and consistency of the literature. Educ Rev 1–30

Erdoğan İ (2014) Eğitimdeki değişimlere dair eleştirel irdelemeler. HAYEF J Educ 11(1):129–140

Fenech M, Harrison LJ, Press F, Sumsion J (2020) Using metaphor to illuminate quality in early childhood education. Australas J Early Child 45(2):197–210

Grammatikopoulos V, Gregoriadis A, Tsigilis N, Zachopoulou E (2014) Parental conceptions of quality in Greek early childhood education. Eur Early Child Educ Res J 22(1):134–148

Hu BY, Zhou Y, Chen L, Fan X, Winsler A (2017) Preschool expenditures and Chinese children’s academic performance: the mediating effect of teacher–child interaction quality. Early Child Res Q 41:37–49

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Ikegami K, Agbenyega JS (2014) Exploring educators’ perspectives: how does learning through ‘happiness’ promote quality early childhood education? Australas J Early Child 39(3):46–55

Ishimine K (2011) Quality in early childhood education and care: a case study of disadvantage. Aust Educ Res 38(3):257–274

Ishimine K, Tayler C (2014) Assessing quality in early childhood education and care. Eur J Educ 49(2):272–290

Kagitcibasi C, Sunar D, Bekman S, Baydar N, Cemalcilar Z (2009) Continuing effects of early enrichment in adult life: the Turkish Early Enrichment Project 22 years later. J Appl Dev Psychol 30(6):764–779

Karademir A, Cingi MA, Dereli F, Akman B (2017) Quality in preschool education: the views of teachers and assistant teachers. Bayburt Eğitim Fak Derg 12(23):7–33

Katz L (1993) Multiple perspectives on the quality of early childhood programs. Eric Digest. Report number EDO-PS-93–2

Konan N, ve Çelik O, Çetin R (2018) Türkiye’de Okul Yöneticisi Görevlendirme Sorunu: Bir Meta Sentez Çalışması. Pamukkale Üniv Eğitim Fak Derg 44:92–113

Korkmazyürek Y (2020) Paradigma değişikliği; nitel araştırmalarda literatür temelinde kodlama ve temellendirilmiş kuram oluşturma. Gazi Kitabevi, Ankara

NAEYC (2019) Defining and recognizing high-quality early learning programs: NAEYC’s 10 accreditation standards. Teach Young Children 13(1). https://www.naeyc.org/defning-recognizinghigh-quality-early-learning-programs

Noblit GW, Hare RD (1988) Meta-ethnography: synthesizing qualitative studies. Sage Publications

OECD (2019) Providing quality early childhood education and care: results from the Starting Strong Survey 2018, TALIS. OECD Publishing, Paris

Pihlainen K, Reunamo J, Sajaniemi N, Kärnä E (2022) Children’s negative experiences as a part of quality evaluation in early childhood education and care. Early Child Dev Care 192(5):795–806

Rodríguez-Carrillo J, Mérida-Serrano R, González-Alfaya ME (2020) ‘A teacher’s hug can make you feel better’: listening to US children’s voices on high-quality early childhood teaching. Eur Early Child Educ Res J 28(4):504–518

Rosenthal MK (1999) Out-of-home child care research: a cultural perspective. Int J Behav Dev 23(2):477–518

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Rosenthal MK (2003) Quality in early childhood education and care: a cultural context. Eur Early Child Educ Res J 11(2):101–116

Saldana J (2011) Fundamentals of qualitative research. Oxford university press

Sewagegn AA, Bitew WB, Fenta TB, Dessie AA (2022) The status of early childhood care and education in northwest Ethiopia: an investigation from quality perspective. Int J Early Years Educ 31(4):1–16

Sheridan S (2007) Dimensions of pedagogical quality in preschool. Int J Early Years Educ 15(2):197–217

Slot PL, Leseman PP, Verhagen J, Mulder H (2015) Associations between structural quality aspects and process quality in Dutch early childhood education and care settings. Early Child Res Q 33:64–76

Sollars V (2020a) Defining quality in early childhood education: parents’ perspectives. Eur Early Child Educ Res J 28(3):319–331

Sollars V (2022b) Reflecting on ‘quality’ in early childhood education: practitioners’ perspectives and voices. Early Years 42(4–5):613–630

Strauss A, Corbin J (1990) Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedure and techniques. Sage, New-bury Park, London

Şimşek H (2018) Toplam kalite yönetimi: Kuram, ilkeler, uygulamalar. Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara

Textor MR (1998) International perspectives on quality child care. Early Child Educ J 25(3):167–171

Tobin J (2005) Quality in early childhood education: an anthropologist’s perspective. Early Educ Dev 16(4):421–434

Torii K, Fox S, Cloney D (2017) Quality is key in early childhood education in Australia. Mitchell Institute Policy Paper No. 01/2017 (Issue 01)

UNICEF (2017) Early childhood development. For every child, early moments matter. https://www.unicef.org/early-childhood-development

UNESCO, UNICEF, Brookings Institution, & the World Bank (2017) Overview: measuring early learning quality and outcomes (MELQO). Authors, Paris

Vandell D, Wolfe B (2000) Child care quality: does it matter and does it need to be improved? Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Madison, WI

Vandenbroeck M, Lenaerts K, Beblavý M (2018) Benefits of early childhood education and care and the conditions for obtaining them. EENEE Analytical Report No. 32. Prepared for the European Commission. Erasmus Plus. https://doi.org/10.2766/20810

Vygotsky L (1978) Interaction between learning and development. Read Dev Child 23(3):34–41

Wysłowska O, Slot PL (2020) Structural and process quality in early childhood education and care provisions in Poland and the Netherlands: a cross-national study using cluster analysis. Early Educ Dev 31(4):524–540

Yıldırım A, Şimsek H (2021) Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık, Ankara

Zaslow M, Martinez-Beck I, Tout K, Halle T (2011) Quality measurement in early childhood. Brookes, Baltimore, MD

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Child Development, Faculty of Health Sciences, İnönü University, Malatya, 04223410220, Turkey

Mehmet Sağlam & Osman Tayyar Çelik

Department of Child Development, Vocational School of Health Services, Iğdır University, Iğdır, 04762230010, Turkey

Department of Child Development, Faculty of Health Sciences, Bilecik Şeyh Edebali University, Bilecik, 02282141897, Turkey

Ümit Kahraman

Department of Child Development, Vocational School of Health Services, Hakkari University, Hakkari, 04382121212, Turkey

Department of Child Development, Vocational School of Health Services, Muş Alparslan University, Muş, 04362492401, Turkey

Burcu Candemir

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

MS: Literature review, writing the introduction, formal organization of the article, following the publication process, OTÇ: Data analysis, methodology, organization of findings. YT: Creation of a data pool, discussion of the findings obtained. ÜK: Organization and discussion of findings. DA: Literature review, writing the results. BC: Literature review, writing the results.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mehmet Sağlam .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was not required as the study did not involve human participants.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not required as the study did not involve human participants.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Sağlam, M., Çelik, O.T., Tunç, Y. et al. Meta-thematic analysis of quality in early childhood education and care. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10 , 966 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02491-3

Download citation

Received : 17 August 2023

Accepted : 30 November 2023

Published : 16 December 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02491-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

Nature play in early childhood education: a systematic review and meta ethnography of qualitative research.

• 1 Department of Education, Thomas More University of Applied Sciences, Rotterdam, Netherlands
• 2 Department of Educational and Family Studies, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
• 3 LEARN! Research Institute, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
• 4 Department of Education, University of Applied Sciences Leiden, Leiden, Netherlands

Play in nature-based environments in childhood education has positive benefits for child development. Although previous reviews showed the benefits of play in nature-based environments for child development they did not attempt to understand how and why nature-based environments contribute to play quality. This review aims to explore the value of play in nature-based environments compared to non-nature-based environments for developmental outcomes of young children (2–8 year). We searched for studies that investigated the relation between play and nature-based environments on the databases PsycINFO, ERIC, and Web of Science. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were: (1) the study focused on play in/on a nature based environment, (2) the study included participants between the age of 2–8 years, (3) it was an empirical study, (4) the study was conducted in the context of early childhood education (ECE), and (5) the study included participants without special needs or disabilities. Using these criteria we selected 28 qualitative studies with an overall sample size of N = 998 children aged 2–8 years. The studies were synthesized using an adaptation of Noblit and Hare’s meta-ethnographic approach. Three overarching themes were found: (1) the aspects of play quality that are related to nature-based environments, (2) the aspects of nature-based environments that support play, and (3) the aspects of teacher-child interactions that contribute to nature play quality. The meta themes resonate with play theories and theories of the restorative value of nature. We draw on the qualitative data to refine and extend these theories, and to come up with a definition of the concept “nature play.” This systematic review also sets a base for future research on play interventions in nature-based environments. We argue that (1) research will benefit from thoroughly conceptualizing the role of play in the development of young children, (2) using the affordances theory research will benefit from moving beyond the individual play actions as a unit of analysis, and (3) from an educational perspective it is important to shift the focus of nature play to its benefits for children’s cognitive development.

Introduction

In early childhood education (ECE), play and learning are inextricably intertwined ( Hirsh-Pasek, 2008 ). Play is often considered as a context for young children’s learning and development, and can take place indoors (e.g., in a classroom) as well as outdoors (e.g., in a nature-based environment). However, outdoor play in ECE is often done for its value to relax and recover from the important play and learning time that takes place indoors. As a result, in ECE play in outdoor settings is not often valued for its potential benefits for children’s learning development ( Miranda et al., 2017 ). Recently, many studies have focused on play and learning in nature-based environments. Based on these studies, this review aims to explore the value of play in nature based environments in ECE. The research for this review was guided by the following question: what is the value of play in nature-based environments compared to non-nature-based environments for developmental outcomes of young children (2–8 year).

Play as a context for child development, three perspectives

In most cultural communities, play is a major aspect of children’s life ( Roopnarine, 2012 ). Most play researchers agree on the importance of play in early childhood. In fact, play is seen as a key element of child development because it is the context for the development of cognition (including language), motor skills and social-emotional competence ( Rubin et al., 1983 ; Golinkoff et al., 2006 ; Nathan and Pellegrini, 2010 ).

To affirm the importance of play, in Article 31 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child ( United Nations, 1989 ) play is viewed as a fundamental need and right of children. This need for and right to play needs to be respected in the lives of young children. Consequently, article 31 challenges us to understand play from the perspective of children’s needs and rights.

Before play ended up as a fundamental right in the Children’s Rights Treaty, the critical role of play has been studied by many scholars using different theoretical frameworks. According to Wynberg et al. (2022) , roughly three theoretical perspectives can be distinguished. First, Piaget describes in Play, Dreams and Imitation in Childhood ( Piaget, 2013 ), how children incorporate objects and events of the world around them in their play, creating a mental model of the world. In this genetic epistemology perspective, children’s level of cognitive development is reflected in types of play (functional and constructive play, symbolic/fantasy play and games with rules). Piaget’s theory of cognitive development suggests four phases in which intelligence changes as children grow. For early childhood the first three are relevant: children (0–12 year) grow from sensorimotor intelligence (e.g., children understand the external world only by sensing and touching objects that are present), into preoperational intelligence (e.g., during this period children are thinking at a symbolic level but are not yet using cognitive operations, they still need to act in the external world to perform these operations) into concrete operational intelligence (e.g., children can use logic and transform, combine and separate concepts on a mental level) In this way, children’s play can be classified on the basis of their cognitive development, but children’s play is not seen as a context for new development. Therefore, this theoretical perspective does not explain how children’s play quality and the physical environment are related.

Secondly, in contrast to Piaget’s view that play reflects the actual level of children’s cognitive development, in Vygotsky’s cultural historical activity theory (CHAT), play is considered a social activity in which children meet and interact with the social cultural environment. With help of parents, educators and peers, children gain in play a driving force for further cognitive, social-emotional, and motor development ( Nicolopoulou, 1993 ).

Leontiev advanced Vygotsky’s theory by differentiating play actions from play activity. Play actions are performed to achieve a single goal. A play activity is a set of related play actions that meet children’s need to get to know the world around them and be able to contribute to it. Their play activity derives its meaning from the satisfaction of fulfilling this need, which is the motive for their activity. However, the goal of a play action does not necessary coincide with the motive of the activity. In fact, the single goal of an action often comes apart from this motive. For instance, children in a nature-based environment collect sticks (action) to build a pretend bonfire (activity) to fulfill their need to get the feel of making a bonfire (not because they were cold or needed to cook).

Within CHAT, tool use is an important aspect of play activity. Tools help children to fulfill their need and these (symbolic) tools link the action (collecting sticks) to their motive (getting to know bonfires by pretending to make one). In other words, children are motivated by these tools. In the play context, tools have agency to achieve goals ( Bodrova and Leong, 2015 ; Wynberg et al., 2022 ) and motivation to use the tools is what makes children act, think and develop ( Nicolopoulou, 1993 ; Deci and Ryan, 2008 ; Bakhurst, 2009 ). As a result of engaging in play, the perceptual world–i.e., the world the child meets through perceptually interacting with it–becomes a conceptual world of meaning and value. In this process, the child develops the mental power to understand the (meaning of) the world that surrounds him/her. The perceptual world invites or affords play activity ( Bakhurst, 2009 ). In the example of children building a bonfire, the sticks mediate between the perceptual and conceptual world, children use their mental power to imagine the real fire and the heat that comes from it, while building the bonfire and gathering around it. Although CHAT accounts for the role of the physical environment in children’s play, the environment is mostly viewed as situated in a socio-cultural environment.

Thirdly, Gopnik (2020) describes childhood from an evolutionary perspective as a time for the human mind to explore the unpredictable range of human possibilities. To develop the capacity to navigate the perceptual world, in other words to get the feel or hang of it, children actually have to feel the world and hang around in it. During childhood, children are especially prone to explorative and “active” learning. While involved in messy and intuitive play actions, children gather new information about the world around them, learning and adapting without using adult intelligence, such as planning or focused attention. Instead, they get involved with all their senses to imagine even far-away and unlikely hypotheses, such as using objects during play in a creative way, not being hindered by experience of the usual function of the object ( Gopnik and Wellman, 2012 ; Schulz, 2012 ; Wente et al., 2019 ). Within the evolutionary perspective childhood is an extended time for exploration of an environment that is variable, with a mix of predictability and unpredictability. In the same way as the CHAT, within the evolutionary perspective the focus is on cultural learning, i.e., obtaining information from other humans and not so much from the interaction with the nature-based environment.

Although these three perspectives differ in focus and methodology, they all acknowledge play as important for child development. During play children find out the meaning of the world that surrounds them, including the physical world, and learn how they can interact with it. In this way they develop as human beings with cognitive, social, emotional, and motor competencies.

Defining play

In this review, we focus on play and how the quality of play might be supported by the physical environment where children play. Therefore, we need a definition to distinguish play behavior from other behavior. As we have seen in the literature on play there is no defining key factor that connects all actions that are recognized as play actions. In the Oxford handbook of the development of play , Burghardt (2012) comes up with a set of five criteria that characterize the play of all animals: (1) It is not fully functional in the form in which it is expressed; play actions can look functional but the actions do not contribute to survival; (2) It is spontaneous, voluntary, intentional, pleasurable, and done for the sake of playing; (3) Play differs from functional behavior in structure or timing in at least one respect: incomplete, awkward, and precocious; (4) It is performed repeatedly but not in a stereotyped way; and (5) It is initiated when the animal is “relaxed”: well fed, warm and safe. These five criteria partly overlap with the dispositions described by Rubin et al. (1983) . They define play as: (1) intrinsically motivated; (2) for the sake of play(ing); (3) deriving pleasure from it, and; (4) having the freedom to modify the rules within the play ( Rubin et al., 1983 ). For this review, we will combine the aforementioned criteria and include all behaviors that can be classified as a child’s interaction with the environment, while being highly involved, intrinsically motivated, deriving pleasure from it, and having the freedom to modify the rules (cf., Rubin et al., 1983 ).

The quality of the physical environment in relation to play quality

The physical environment where children play is part of their play. The value of explorative and active play is directly related to both the complexity of the physical environment and the opportunity to incorporate the environment in play ( Gopnik, 2020 ). In other words, an environment not only serves as a play décor, but it also serves as a place that affords play. For example, findings from systematic reviews consistently demonstrate that a nature-based environment affords different play behavior compared to non-nature-based environments ( Gill, 2014 ; Dankiw et al., 2020 ; Zare Sakhvidi et al., 2022 ). How can this be explained?

The affordances theory of Gibson (2014) is a way to describe an environment in terms of the distinctive features that offer possibilities for play behavior for a child or a group of children. An affordance is something that refers to both the environment and the skills of a child at that moment. The affordance theory helps to understand why nature-based environments differ from non-nature-based environments. For instance, a tree can afford leaning for a 1-year old, hiding for a 5-year old and climbing for a 7-year old. Heft (1988) and Kyttä (2002) advanced the affordances theory into a functional taxonomy, by describing the distinctive functional properties of an environment, properties that are both objectively real and psychological relevant. It is a way to describe the setting, the person (the child with her skills at that moment) and the action as a “system.” According to Heft (1988) , the functional possibilities for meaningful play that children perceive in nature-based environments are different from the possibilities they perceive in non-nature-based environments.

In addition to the affordances theory to describe the assets of nature-based environments for play, two complementary theories from research on nature-based environments are related to aspects of play (quality) as well: the Stress Recovery Theory (SRT) and the Attention Restoration Theory (ART) ( Ulrich, 1983 ; Kaplan, 1995 ; Berto, 2014 ). SRT is a psycho-evolutionary theory that states that since humans evolved over a long period in natural environments, people are to some extent physiologically and perhaps psychologically better adapted to nature-based environments as to non-nature based environments. ART is a psycho-functionalist theory that states that humans have an innate predisposition to pay attention and respond positively to natural content (e.g., vegetation and water) and to settings that helped survival during evolution. Both theories state that nature-based-environments are more restorative than non-nature-based environments; according to SRT, nature-based environments relieve physiological stress whereas according to ART, nature-based environments restore mental fatigue. In this way nature-based environments contribute to play quality as we look at the criteria for play quality mentioned above: a child can only initiate play when it is relaxed, and play asks for involvement and attention.

Defining nature-based environments

As we see how the quality of the play activity of a child is intrinsically linked to the nature-based environment, we need a definition to distinguish a nature-based environment from other environments. As it is difficult to find one key factor to define play, there is also no such key factor that connects all environments recognized as nature-based environments. To describe such an environment the affordances theory of Greeno (1994) , Gibson (2014) , and Lerstrup and Konijnendijk van den Bosch (2017) makes it possible to look at an environment in terms of affordances. He described five affording features of an environment: (1) places, (2) attached and (3) detached objects, (4) substances, and (5) events. In this review, we use these features to distinguish nature-based environments from non-nature-based environments. Nature-based environments (1) have a surface (place) that is the basis for growth of living elements, (2) provide possibilities for interacting with living, non-man-made elements like plants, trees, and insects, (3) these living elements “provide” loose materials to play with, such as sticks, seeds, feathers, and shells (attached and detached “objects”), (4) non-living elements are part of a nature-based environment as these elements are connected to the biosphere of the living elements such as water, rocks, and soil (substances), and (5) weather elements such as fresh air, rain, wind and sunshine, or seasonal elements such as blooming or decay are the features that ensure change (events) ( Gill, 2014 ; Chawla, 2015 ; Dankiw et al., 2020 ).

The role of the teacher

For this review, we also investigated the role the teacher has in designing and/or choosing the play environment. The motivation and the capacity to be taught by the world is not totally innate. It needs to be nurtured and sustained by adults. Early childhood teachers are part of the play context and have a role in mediating between the child and the world. In this context they also have a role in the acquisition and use of language during play. While the perceptual world with its structure and rules becomes a conceptual world in play the acquisition and use of language makes it possible to store the concepts in the mind ( Huizinga, 2014 ). Most play theories agree on the role early childhood teachers have in guarding children’s play, enriching children’s play environment, and protecting children for dangers, but there is considerable debate on the question if and how adults should participate in children’s play activities ( van Oers, 2013 ).

Reason for this review

Reasoning from play theories and the environmental psychologist theories we might expect that nature-based play environments, as an indivisible part of children’s play actions, can contribute to children’s cognitive, social-emotional, and motor development.

In the last decade, many studies have been conducted into the relation between a healthy development of children and engagement in nature-based environments. Most of these studies have focused on health and physical activity. The reviews of Gill (2014) , Chawla (2015) , and more recently Dankiw et al. (2020) have provided overviews of the benefits of nature for children’s development. These reviews were focused on children between 1 and 12 years old. First, the systematic review of Gill showed the benefits of children’s engagement with nature on mental health as well as physical activity. Second, Chawla’s work was not so much a systematic review but a thorough reflection on research into the benefits of nature contact for children. She placed the research in the context of changing research approaches, thus showing how different research questions and methods shape our understanding of the benefits of access to nature for children. Third, Dankiw’s review investigated the impacts of children’s engagement with unstructured nature play, finding that unstructured nature play may have a positive impact on different aspects of child development. By focusing on developmental outcomes of quantitative studies, this study did not attempt to understand how or why unstructured nature play is related to these positive outcomes. A systematic review of qualitative studies can synthesize findings and advance the knowledge base of how nature-based environments contribute to play quality. Synthesizing the fragmented literature will contribute to a useful resource for guiding future research on this topic and inform early childhood educational practices, valuing nature-based play environments as intrinsically linked to play quality.

We systematically reviewed studies into play in nature-based environments in ECE. These studies may contribute to our understanding of the experiences of children and teachers in ECE when going outside to play in nature- based environments. Moreover, these experiences set out a basis for understanding the possibilities of playing in nature-based environments for cognitive, social-emotional, and motor development in ECE. We reviewed studies in early childhood educational settings since in these settings play is an important part of the curriculum.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines ( Page et al., 2021 ) was adopted for the purposes of the present review. A PRISMA checklist is provided in Supplementary File 1 .

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Articles were included if they met the following selection criteria:

(1) The study focused on play in/on a nature based environment (studies were excluded if the exposure to nature was not specified as “interaction” or “play” or if the environment where the children played did not match our criteria of nature based environments as stated in our introduction).

(2) The study included participants between the age of 2–8 years.

(3) It was an empirical study.

(4) The study was conducted in the context of ECE (studies were excluded if they were not conducted in a center for ECE, such as day care centers and preschools).

(5) The study included participants without special needs or disabilities.

Databases and search query

Databases PsycINFO, ERIC, and Web of Science were used to identify studies that investigated the relation between play and nature-based environments. To ensure the quality of the studies we only included empirical studies that were published in peer-reviewed journals. Furthermore studies written in English that were published between May 1995 and 2022 were included. We combined keywords on the two major concepts of this review: play and nature-based environments. To ensure a comprehensive search the following keywords were used for play or activity: manipulative play, object play, relational play, block play, loose part play, outdoor play, free play, unstructured play, rough and tumble play, explorative play, creative play, construction play, physical play, gross motor play, role play, pretend play, social play, imaginative play, socio dramatic play, social pretend play, as if play or physical activity, unstructured activity, explorative activity, physical activity, construction activity, and gross motor activity. For the nature-based environment, the following keywords were used: green or natural environment, playground, landscape playscape setting area or space, school garden, school forest, school wetland, school wilderness, school grassland, greenery, garden, forest, wetland, wilderness, grassland, tree cover, tree canopy, biodiverse school ground, and nature based. Boolean operators were used to ensure that each possible combination of keywords was included. The search query is provided in Supplementary File 2 .

Selection procedure

The primary search resulted in a selection of 5,961 articles. Next, duplicates were removed, and titles, abstracts, and keywords of the remaining articles were manually screened. Many studies in this first selection were either in the field of environmental science or health, and did not concern playing children. After removing the studies that obviously did not meet our selection criteria we assessed 166 articles for eligibility. We excluded 107 studies for reasons of age. We also screened studies with participants between 2 and 8 years as well as participants beyond this age. We did not include them because it was impossible to decide if the results were specific for the group of children between 2 and 8 years. A random selection of twenty articles of the 166 articles were checked with two researchers, both members of a research group performing a systematic review in the field of ECE. They checked if the article met the criteria of our definition of play and nature based environment as stated in our introduction. Quality appraisal was made through the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tool for Qualitative Studies ( Lockwood et al., 2020 ) (see Supplementary File 2 ). Using this tool we were surprised by the innovative and creative ways these studies adapted to respect the voice of young children. We ended up with a final selection of 28 studies with an overall sample size of N = 998 children aged 3–8 years. See Figure 1 for an overview of the study selection process.

Figure 1. Study selection process.

Data extraction and synthesis

The selected studies were analyzed and synthesized in four steps based on Noblit and Hare’s meta-ethnography method and adapted for this study ( Agar, 1990 ; Noblit and Hare, 2012 ; Nye et al., 2016 ): Step 1: The studies were read and re-read to gain a detailed understanding of their theories and concepts and their findings according to the following categories: (1) Design/method, (2) theories and conceptualization, and (3) outcomes. Supplementary Table 1 gives an overview of the 28 studies, specified according to these categories. To retain the meaning of the primary concepts within individual studies and to define the relations between these concepts we developed codes regarding the experiences of children and teachers while playing in nature-based environments during ECE (i.e., authors’ interpretation of the data and “second order constructs”).

Step 2: In order to determine how the studies were related, the initial codes were grouped according to key aspects of (1) play quality, (2) the nature-based environment, and (3) the teacher-child interactions. These key concepts from individual studies were synthesized, which resulted in lists of overarching themes for each of the three groups (see Figure 2 ).

Figure 2. Meta-synthesis of key concepts into three themes and two Meta-themes.

Step 3: Studies were translated into one another to produce “meta-themes” across the different aspects of play in nature-based environments. To draw out the findings under each meta-theme, some studies were chosen as “index” papers from which we extracted findings. These index papers stood out in terms of their conceptual richness. Their findings were then compared to and contrasted with the findings of a second study, and the resulting synthesis of these two studies were then contrasted with a third study, and so forth. This is referred to as “reciprocal translation” ( Noblit and Hare, 2012 ; Nye et al., 2016 ). For example Lerstrup and Konijnendijk van den Bosch (2017) advanced Gibsons and Hefts theory of affordances and functional classes of outdoor features into “key activities” afforded by classes of the outdoor environment. These new concepts were used for the translation of concepts from other papers that were related but not conceptualized in this way.

Step 4: The meta-themes from step 3 were synthesized according to aspects of quality of ECE. Via interpretive reading of these meta-themes we developed a “line of argument” synthesis regarding the value of play in nature-based environments for improving developmental outcomes of ECE. This is presented in the discussion.

Meta method analysis

During step 1 we analyzed the study designs of the 28 included studies. The studies into play in nature-based environments in ECE all aimed to get more insight into the relation between children’s play and nature-based environments in ECE. The studies aimed to study a myriad of educational outcomes, such as physical activity, cognitive, social-emotional, and motor development as well as health. The relevance of these studies is motivated by concerns about changes in the practice of playing outside as healthy practice for young children’s physical and mental wellbeing. Opportunities for outdoor play have diminished drastically since the mid-20th century, due to cultural changes such as parental control and fear, inadequate access to outdoor playgrounds, screen time and the focus on cognitive development in ECE.

The studies included in the present review can all be characterized as small-scale studies using observations of play behavior in nature-based environments and interviews with teachers and children to explore their experiences of playing in nature-based environment. Participating early childhood settings in the studies were sampled based on their outdoor play practices including the design of their playgrounds. These studies can be divided into two groups: one that compared play on a nature-based (part of the) playground to play on (part of the) traditional designed playground and one that compared forest school practice to indoor/outdoor classroom practice.

In all studies, except for one, the sample size was given and ranged between N = 4 and N = 198, with a total of N = 998 and a mean of N = 36. Twelve of the studies had a sample size of < N = 20, 13 had a sample size between N = 20 and N = 100, one study had a sample size of N = 198, and one had a sample of teachers N = 63 teachers. One study did not specify the sample size. The relatively small sample sizes of most studies can be explained by the fact that the studies had an explorative and qualitative research design.

Seventeen studies used play observations describing different aspects of the relation between children’s play behavior and nature-based outdoor environments, to get more insight in how children use outdoor environments during outdoor play activities. In most studies these observations were characterized as phenomenological, ethnographical, and participatory. Blanchet-Cohen and Elliot (2011) for instance described how participatory observation was a primary method of listening to young children in unmediated ways to get insight in how the children used the nature based environment. In the studies of Moore et al. (2019) and Dyment and O’Connell (2013) observation was done by using event sampling or taking scans with an observation tool, making it easier to observe a higher number of participants.

In the studies where children’s views on their outdoor play experiences were explored, a mosaic approach was used to get insight into the views of young children, using arts-based data techniques while interviewing children. These studies were inventive and respected the way young participants are able to express their own views. For example, in the study of Streelasky (2019) , drawings, paintings, and photographs were used during child interviews to support them in expressing their views. In the study of Moore et al. (2019) , the children gave a tour around the yard to express their views on the value of the nature-based environment. Four studies also collected data from teachers, to explore their views and their interaction with children when playing outside in nature-based environments.

Although most studies used open observations to investigate the play activities of the children, some used validated instruments, such as the system for Observing Play and Leisure Activity in Youth (SOPLAY). This system is used by Fjørtoft (2001) as well as by Dyment and O’Connell (2013) and is a way to label children’s activities, for instance to assess the diversity of their activities, but it does not capture how these activities are related to the play environment. Another way to assess the quality of the play activities is in terms of involvement, freedom, and joy. In two studies, the Leuven Child Involvement Scale was used to analyse children’s play in terms of involvement and joy. Other studies ( Luchs and Fikus, 2013 , 2018 ; Morrissey et al., 2017 ) used the duration of the play episodes as a measure of the quality of the play: The longer children played, the higher the quality of their play episode.

In three studies instruments were used to assess the play potential of the nature-based outdoor environment. Mårtensson et al. (2009) , for example, used the outdoor play environment categories (OPEC) tool, which gives a higher score to environments with large integrated spaces with plentiful greenery and varied topography compared to small areas where open spaces, play structures and vegetation are placed in separate parts of the environment. Richardson and Murray (2016) used the early childhood environment rating scale (ECERS) to assess the nature-based environment, but this tool is developed to assess indoor classrooms and is not adapted for outdoor spaces.

Four of the five studies that also used quantitative data, measured children’s physical activity in a quantitative way using accelerometers, and one study measured if features of the natural environment correlated with measures of inattentiveness.

Data analysis techniques were specified in all of the studies. In most of them (24 studies) comparative thematic analysis was used as data analysis technique. In the five mixed method studies, several statistical tests were used as well.

Details about strategies to address validity were not often mentioned, but four of the studies used focus groups of teachers to discuss the finding of the studies and to perform a member check.

Meta concept and theory analysis

During step 2, we synthesized key concepts in the studies. The studies in this review were selected based on two conceptual criteria, one of them was the nature-based environment , the other concept was play (or aspects of play). Most studies used a specific theoretical framework and/or a philosophical perspective to explain and understand the expected relation between nature-based environments and play. These theories help us to conceptualize about and generalize the findings within the specific studies and help us to understand the limits of these generalizations.

Seven studies used a specific theory in which the concept of play was embedded. Most of these studies used Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, from which play can be defined as a mode of activity. However, the concept “activity” was mostly used as “the things children do” or, in other words, children’s actions. Certainly, the theory was not used to place play in the larger cultural-historical context. Other studies used a criterion- based definition of play, such as it was “free” or child initiated. For example, in the study of Brussoni et al. (2017) play was described in terms of activities chosen by the children. Different aspects of these activities in nature-based environments were explained, such as hierarchy between peers during play, the complexity of the play or the duration of play episodes. Other studies defined play as consisting of different play categories, some of them cognitively more complex. For example, in the study of Dyment and O’Connell (2013) play was described using five categories: functional, constructive, symbolic, self-focused, and talking, whereas the constructive and symbolic category was also coded as creative and imaginative. In the studies that focused on a specific type of play, such as physical play, risky play, or sociodramatic play, it was easier to extract the specific play concept. Morrissey et al. (2017) for instance, used a detailed description of the concept of sociodramatic play: involving two or more players, providing a crucial everyday context in which children are motivated to engage socially with peers, and practice skills in communication, negotiation, symbolic, and creative thinking.

Nature based environment

Twelve studies used Gibson’s affordances theory to distinguish nature-based environments from non-nature-based environments. Lerstrup and Konijnendijk van den Bosch (2017) , for instance, used the affordances approach to operationalize how play actions are afforded by a specific feature of the environment and a specific user (a child of the preschool participating in their study) of that feature. In this way, the environment is not viewed as a separate object, but as something children take with them in their own experiences. Sandseter (2009) assessed how a nature-based environment affords risky play for pre-schoolers, using the concept of affordances, but adding the role of the educator to the equation.

Some studies used the concept “play opportunities” instead of affordances, to operationalize the relation between children’s play behavior and a nature-based environment. Canning (2013) , for example, made observation notes of the play behavior during den-making sessions and focused on the conversations between children to explore how the environment offers opportunities for creative thinking. In the den-making context the nature-based environment is an integrated part of children’s play experience in the same way as the environment in the affordances approach. In short, in most of the studies the relation between nature-based and children’s play behavior is operationalized as observed activities afforded by nature-based outdoor environments.

Although all of the studies aimed to explore if and how (aspects of) children’s play behavior is afforded by nature-based outdoor environments, there is no generally accepted description of the concept “nature-based environment” and it is hardly operationalized in most of the studies. Fourteen studies ( Supplementary Table 1 nrs. 2, 3, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 27, and 28) used a comparator outdoor play environment to compare the nature-based environment with. The comparator environment that was referred to as “traditional” or “usual,” always contained man-made or manufactured elements such as a climbing structure and a sandpit. Another similarity in the description of elements that the non-nature-based environment consisted of was the character of the surface: it was paved, concrete, or hard. This is a kind of surface that afforded functional play: riding bikes, running around. These comparator environments can serve as a starting point to describe the (operationalized) characteristic elements of the nature-based environments in the studies.

In contrast, the elements of the nature-based environment were in the first place described as elements that were not man-made and do change, grow or die (even) without the intervention of humans. For instance, in the study of Brussoni et al. (2017) the “seven C’s system” for assessing the quality of the outdoor environment was used. One of the C’s stands for change: How does the play environment change over time? Second, although nature based environments can change, grow or die without human intervention, at the same time the elements of the nature-based environment are more sensitive to human intervention than man-made elements in an a non-nature based environment, for instance a climbing structure. Therefore, nature-based environments ask for care when playing with and in it, which interferes with the children’s play actions. Third, the surface of the nature-based environment is referred to as “biodiverse, soft, and diverse.” An example of this is the study of Puhakka et al. (2019) . In this study, the greening of day-care yards consisted not only of adding green elements, but also of replacing the complete surface area of a day-care yard by forest floor, sod, peat blocks, and planters for vegetable growing, making the surface more biodiverse.

Related to the surface as an important element of the nature-based environment, in many studies natural loose parts found in or on this surface were a vital element of the nature-based environment affording specific play activities. Harwood and Collier (2017) even went a step further by not operationalizing the observed activities of the children afforded by nature-based outdoor environments, but by operationalizing the activities that the natural loose parts performed in the child’s play narrative. In this view, the agency of sticks in children’s multi modal texts was afforded by the children. This post-humanist perspective (as they called it) was interesting as it described how the agency of the children was enriched by focusing on the agency of the stick. To acknowledge the agency of nature-based environments might be a key factor in describing the special way it affords play, compared to other environments.

Three studies used a theory of place. These theories account for the fact that a child’s identity is nurtured and shaped by place ( Gruenewald, 2003 ; Adams and Savahl, 2017 ; Crippen, 2017 ). Children have strong attachments to the places they play in and actively construct places for imaginative play ( Hart, 1979 ).

Meta data analysis

In step 3 we compared and contrasted the key concepts found in the studies to one another to establish overarching themes (reciprocal translation). Most of the studies showed that aspects of children’s play quality are related to aspects of nature-based environments which might lead to benefits for child development if mediated in certain ways by early childhood educators. However, this relationship is complex and it is not easy to isolate the elements of the physical environment from all other factors that influence play quality. In order to find how the outcomes of studies were related, we grouped the studies according to (1) aspects of play quality (2) aspects of nature-based environment, and (3) aspects of teacher-child interactions.

Theme 1: Aspects of play quality: play actions, play attitude, and cognitive play

All studies pointed out that there was a relation between children’s play actions and nature-based environments. Firstly, compared to a non-nature-based environment, there was more variety in play categories while children played in nature-based environments. In the studies, a non-nature-based environment mostly afforded a more physical type of play whereas nature-based environments afforded more diversity in type of play. For instance, Luchs and Fikus (2018) observed that children showed play patterns in which they combined different play types. Six studies reported more socio-dramatic play in the nature-based environment. In the study of Coates and Pimlott-Wilson (2019) , for example, children reported that the forest site where they played offered them opportunities to make things and be creative, and enact their own stories.

Secondly, the vast majority of the studies reported how play in nature-based environments was related to children’s social-emotional attitude during play. Interesting were the studies that included children’s own perspectives on their play experiences in nature-based environments: Children often reported joy, wellbeing, and enthusiasm. For instance, in the study of Moore et al. (2019) they included “stories of agency” in which children demonstrated a strong sense of comfort and self-confidence with the nature-based environment, by telling about the freedom they felt to make footprints anywhere or to cool down in the grass. This sense of confidence was also found in the studies that observed more risky play in nature-based environments, or a higher degree of risk afforded by nature-based environment. In the study of Mcclain and Vandermaas-Peeler (2015) , the degree of “wilderness” of the environment (a creek compared to a river) afforded the degree of challenge and risk in the observed play behavior. Some studies emphasized the possibility of the nature-based environment to sustain the play story, resulting in longer play episodes, compared to episodes on the non-nature-based playground. But also in using more play space, as the nature-based environment helped them to meander from one area to another. This relates to the studies that pointed to more explorative play behavior or higher involvement and engagement during play in nature-based environment. For example, McCree et al. (2018) found high scores of involvement during play sessions on a forest school site.

Thirdly, besides the fact that playing in a nature-based environment interacts with how children play in such an environment, five studies described how this is related to children’s cognitive development. In early childhood, cognitive development as an outcome of play activities is highly dependent on how much a child is involved in play and the extent to which the child experiences wellbeing. Seven studies observed explorative play behavior, problem solving and creativity and related this to the nature-based environment. For example, in the study of Puhakka et al. (2019) , increasing biodiversity and the amount of greenery of school yards led to more explorative play, more multi-sensory play experiences, and better pre academic skills (i.e., counting) than before the intervention. In the longitudinal study of McCree et al. (2018) an improvement in academic attainment (i.e., reading, writing, and maths) was seen after 3 years of attending weekly forest school sessions compared to their non-participating peers at school. Richardson and Murray’s (2016) study was the only study that measured richer language use during forest school sessions, in terms of noun diversity, and the use of adjectives and verbs.

To summarize this step of reciprocal translation: when children play in nature-based environments, the quality of their experiences during play is improved. This is shown by a greater diversity in play actions while at the same time the duration of the play episode was extended, compared to their play in non-nature-based environments. Children’s involvement and wellbeing during play was intensified while playing in nature-based environments. Furthermore, they were not only physical active but also used different cognitive skills in their play.

Theme 2: Play aspects of nature-based environments

Although in theme 1 we showed that playing in nature-based environments relates to higher play quality, it was not yet connected to specific aspects of the nature-based environment. Theme 2 reveals that this higher play quality is connected to specific aspect of the nature-based environment. Most of the studies indicated a clear relation between nature-based environments and playing with loose or fixed natural materials. Playing with loose materials often leads to construction play. For instance, in the study of Puhakka et al. (2019) the researchers observed that children were doing more arts and crafts with the loose natural materials. In many other studies we reviewed, sticks were mentioned as natural materials with special interest. For instance, in Canning’s (2013) study children used sticks to lay out a ladder and to pretend to climb in it. In the study of Harwood and Collier (2017) the sticks even had agency, for instance they were friends carried and cared for by the child, being able to change the play narrative of the child. In four studies play with small creatures was mentioned (e.g., insects, worms, and snails), as well as care for plants and vegetation. These studies also pointed to the importance of the notion of abundance of natural materials as opposed to the notion of scarcity (for example of toys) in non-nature-based environments. Zamani (2013) described how the living character of nature-based zones sparked curiosity and wonder, and invited play with critters and plants. Also in the study of Wight et al. (2015) the fact that nature “lives” made children caring for it. In three studies the notion of place was connected to the possibility to immerse or hide in it, for instance a shrub or high grass, or to offering objects (leaves and sticks) that can be used to transform the space into a place of imagination for sociodramatic play.

Reciprocal translation led us to conclude that when children played in nature-based environments, specific aspects of the nature-based environment, such as the abundance of materials and substances to play with might be connected to quality of children’s play activities, which is related to the cognitive outcomes mentioned above. At the same time the nature-based environment owns agency in play, “it/he/she plays back, nature instigates play.

Theme 3: Teacher-child interactions

In most of the studies in this review, children’s play in nature-based environments was child initiated, not teacher led. However, the role of the teacher is part of the children’s play environment and in four studies this teacher’s role in nature-based environment was specifically investigated ( Mawson, 2014 ; Mackinder, 2017 ; Akpinar and Kandir, 2022 ). They found that the role of the teacher influences play quality. In the study of Mawson (2014) the outcomes of a hands-off approach to teacher child interactions, where children could freely roam throughout the woods, was compared to a hands-on approach with teacher-led activities. These two approaches resulted in differences in child behavior. In the hands-off approach, children were taking more risk and challenged themselves more and also engaged in more socio-dramatic play, while in the hands-on approach the teacher was directing children’s attention toward objects for play and shared more factual information.

It is important to also consider other factors that support possibilities of nature-based environments for children’s learning and development. Specifically, including assessments of teachers perceptions of their children’s underachievement, along with their supervisory/teacher style. In the study of Maynard et al. (2013) , most of the children in the study that were perceived as “underachieving,” changed their behavior while playing in a nature-based environment to such extent that this “underachievement” was not seen anymore. To be outdoors in nature with more space and less constraining by teachers offered the children the opportunity to show differences in social, emotional, and learning behavior, for instance children were more cooperative, showed more pro-social behavior and remained more on task.

Reciprocal translation led us to conclude that when children play in nature-based environments, the character of the teachers’ mediation between children and between children and the environment influences how the affordances of the nature-based environment are actualized in play. When children received greater independent mobility license from their teachers ( Kyttä, 2004 ) it not only offered more opportunities for risky play, but also for more independence in being creative, explorative, and self-confident. Moreover, teacher’s mediation itself is impacted by the nature-based environment: the nature-based environment changed their expectations of children’s skills and behavior, which in turn influenced children’s independent mobility license. The more affinity with the nature-based environment teachers had, the more they were able to reinforce children’s mobility and agency toward the nature-based environment, by balancing between child initiative and teacher initiative, transferring some of their own initiative to the nature-based environment.

Taken together our qualitative synthesis suggests that the affordances for play in nature-based environments experienced by children and teachers are not only different from the affordances for play in non-nature-based environments, which is obvious, but the affordances of the nature-based environment might also improve the quality of play. This is interesting for ECE teachers, since high quality play will yield children’s learning and development ( Rubin et al., 1983 ). The studies also indicated that the relation between a nature-based environment and play quality is complex. Although the body of research into this topic is growing, more work needs to be done. The qualitative studies reviewed in this article forms a useful complement to the most recent systematic review on this topic from Dankiw et al. (2020) , which reviewed primarily quantitative studies. Insights from the current review can support our understanding of the meaning of play that is enabled and sustained by the nature-based environment for children in ECE. Taken together, our review gives a first indication of the importance of play in nature-based environments for children’s cognitive, social-emotional, and motor development.

Qualitative research can thus unravel how children’s play and the nature-based environment are mutually constitutive and how play processes are mediated by teachers to support children’s cognitive, social-emotional, and motor development. Through an interpretation of the synthesis, below we present a “line of argument”–step 4 in the meta-ethnography–about how nature play can promote child development. We refine parts of play theory, by elaborating on the importance of the distinctive living character of the nature-based environment and its ability to “play back.” Besides, we will use the affordances theory to reframe the concept “afforded play actions.” We argue that reciprocity and diversity are unique qualities of nature play, contributing to child development if teachers permit and support children to explore the conceptual, social, technical, and metacognitive aspects of the nature-based environment in play.

Line of argument, the value of nature play

Play theories explain how children’s active engagement with the surrounding world (i.e., play) results in knowledge of different aspects of the world, while in the meantime they learn to take part in it ( Bakhurst, 2009 ; Piaget, 2013 ; van Oers, 2013 ). This qualitative synthesis illuminates the uniqueness of nature-based environments for meaningful play activity which is largely ignored in play theories Firstly the “living character” of the nature-based environment, the fact that it has a life of its own, accounts for reciprocity and diversity in children’s play. Secondly the fact that children use tools (or toys) during play is commonly accounted for in play theories, whereas nature-based environments provide an ample and diverse supply of loose parts ( Speldewinde and Campbell, 2022 ). Which results in creative and imaginative play. Furthermore, both the stress reduction theory (SRT) as well as the ART account for the special connection between humans and nature-based environments ( Ulrich, 1983 ; Kaplan, 1995 ; Adams and Savahl, 2017 ). These theories imply that being in nature contributes to wellbeing, but do not refer to interactions with nature. For children, being in an environment leads to interaction with it, and play theory shows that the quality of these play interactions is important ( Burghardt, 2012 ; Speldewinde and Campbell, 2022 ). The current synthesis shows that, for children, not only being in nature but also interacting with nature is important, as they experience that these interactions are reciprocal. Nature has agency in these interactions and is adaptive toward diversity in children’s needs. Children listen to and tune into the nature-based environment, for example they gather sticks, pile them up for the imaginative bears to crunch them up during tea time. As such the environment instigates and enriches play.

In line with Gibson’s affordances theory, this review acknowledges how play actions are afforded by specific features of the physical environment and a specific user. However, we found that the affordances theory might overlook the complexity of the concept of “play” as it tends to look at individual play actions afforded by specific environmental features, such as a tree trunks affording jumping off. Using the affordances theory in this way, the attention will automatically be drawn to physical actions. Based on this qualitative synthesis, we argue that nature-based environments afford play activity on a more complex level than physical play actions alone. As we saw in the example of the children serving imaginative bears sticks during tea time, nature affords not only play actions, but also play scripts. The individual play actions are part of play activity that guides children to transform the perceptual world into a conceptual world. Our review indicates that nature-based environments afford the conditions for play, wellbeing, and involvement, as well as sociodramatic play and cognitive play, while in the meantime serving as a communicative context for sharing concepts together.

Our line of argument helps us to answer our research question: what is the value of play in nature-based environments compared to non-nature-based environments for developmental outcomes of young children (2–8 year). Our answer lays in defining how nature-based environments afford play in a distinctive way resulting in the concept of “nature play”: “play” in a nature-based environment consisting of natural loose and fixed elements (trees, vegetation water, sand, sticks, and stones) where children have the opportunity to engage in activities in which they are highly involved and where they have (some) freedom to develop their own play script, while interacting with and tuning into the affordances of the nature-based environment. Nature play has outcomes for cognitive, social-emotional, and cognitive development. In nature play, children have the possibility to find out how they are part of a living system. Early childhood educators are key actors in how children engage in play in the nature-based environment. They can support them to discover the conceptual, social, technical, and metacognitive aspects of nature-based environments. They need to expand children’s independent mobility to encourage them to explore the environment as well as to mediate between the child and the environment.

Strengths and limitations

The strength of this systematic review is that it synthesized the meaning of play in nature-based environments in ECE across qualitative research. It is worth noting that although the synthesized studies were small-scale studies, these studies were particularly respectful to the way children interact with the world and sincerely tried to give voice to the view of these children and their teachers. Nevertheless, small scale studies are often context-specific lacking the scale to “follow through to the implied logical entailed conclusion” ( Nye et al., 2016 ). Synthesizing the findings of these studies helps us to present new understandings of our topic, by drawing relationships between the individual studies. We acknowledge that the way we have refined and extended theory is not without its problems. A possible bias in the range and nature of qualitative research synthesized here is that outdoor play in ECE is mostly done for the reason of recess and to relax. For example, the strong emphasis on wellbeing and physical play in both the experiences of teachers and children, might reflect a western view on outdoor play in nature-based environments. Therefore, the reciprocal translation of the findings around cognitive skills were harder to synthesize although the importance of these findings for ECE should not be underestimated. Certainly, the strength of the meta-ethnographic approach is that it combines findings from multiple sources to increase validity and takes it a step further than primarily providing a narrative review of individual studies. Instead, it develops higher-order explanations. The consistency in the findings of studies in this meta ethnography supported its value, as the studies were undertaken in different educational settings, with nature-based environments varying in size and design. Another limitation is that in our attempt to translate themes across studies to arrive at higher order concepts during “step 2” of the synthesis, we may have lost some of the meaning and depth of key concepts and themes. However, we sought to preserve individual authors’ interpretations in our reciprocal translation of all the key concepts by memoing the key concepts. These memo’s contained comments on how the concepts were developed, connecting these concepts into meta themes, meanwhile we re-aligned our line of argument with the findings of the individual studies.

Future research

This systematic review provides some suggestions for future research. The first promising line for new research would be to include a deep theoretical understanding of play for the development of young children when studying interventions in nature-based environments. Although the affordances theory seems to explain how the environments afford play actions, it is not sufficient to move beyond the individual play actions. From an educational perspective we argue it is important to shift our view of outdoor play from “letting off steam” to playing in nature-based environments for children’s cognitive development.

From a methodological perspective, future research could benefit from the post humanist view in the study of Harwood and Collier (2017) . Taking the agency of the nature-based environment in the play of young children seriously, we might find new perspectives on how humans and nature are connected. This is in line with the movement of acknowledging the rights of nature, as was done for the first time with the Te Urewera Act in New Zealand ( Parliamentary Counsel Office, n.d. ). In this act, it is acknowledged that Te Urewera has an identity in and of itself, inspiring people to commit to its care. In a western view of nature-based environments we tend to look mostly at the human perspective of interaction with the nature-based environment, whereas in this synthesis it is clear that children experience nature as something that “plays back.”

Results of this systematic review using a meta ethnographic approach indicates that playing in nature-based environments not only supports young children’s healthy physical development (e.g., physical activity and motor development), but might also support their social-emotional, motor, and cognitive development. Although the studies we reviewed were mainly explorative and small-scaled, they do indicate that nature-based environments have far more to offer than only a space to relax or let off steam. Nature-based environments function as a play partner that helps children to transform the perceptual world into a conceptual world, because it diversifies play, is sensory rich and it plays back. When playing in nature-based environments, children have the possibility to connect with it in an interactive way. When teachers know how to mediate children’s interactions with the nature-based environment, these interactions will have developmental value. Therefore, we encourage early childhood teachers to change their practice of playing outdoors into “nature play” as a daily activity that supports cognitive, social-emotional, as well as motor development. Finally, as we have seen the value of nature-based environments for play, in line with in Article 31 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child ( United Nations, 1989 ) we might even consider nature play as a fundamental need and right of children. A need for and right to play in nature based environments that needs to be respected in the lives of young children.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/ Supplementary material , further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.

This work was supported by SIA, part of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), (project number RAAK.PRO 02.079).

Acknowledgments

We thank Mrs. Nicole van den Bogerd for her contribution to the keywords for nature-based environments, and Mrs. Mireille Smits and Mrs. Elizabeth Wynberg for their contribution to the validation of the study selection process.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.995164/full#supplementary-material

Adams, S., and Savahl, S. (2017). Nature as children’s space: A systematic review. J. Environ. Educ. 48, 291–321. doi: 10.1080/00958964.2017.1366160

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Agar, M. (1990). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 178, 466–467. doi: 10.1097/00005053-199007000-00016

Akpinar, Ü, and Kandir, A. (2022). Investigation of preschool teachers’ views on outdoor play activities. Pegem J. Educ. Instr. 12, 235–245. doi: 10.47750/PEGEGOG.12.02.23

Bakhurst, D. (2009). Educational Review Reflections on activity theory. Educ. Rev. 61, 197–210. doi: 10.1080/00131910902846916

Berto, R. (2014). The role of nature in coping with psycho-physiological stress: A literature review on restorativeness. Behav. Sci. 4, 394–409. doi: 10.3390/bs4040394

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Blanchet-Cohen, N., and Elliot, E. (2011). Young children and educators engagement and learning outdoors: A basis for rights-based programming. Early Educ. Dev. 22, 757–777. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2011.596460

Bodrova, E., and Leong, D. J. (2015). Vygotskian and post-vygotskian views on children’s play. Am. J. Play 7, 371–388.

Google Scholar

Brussoni, M., Ishikawa, T., Brunelle, S., and Herrington, S. (2017). Landscapes for play: Effects of an intervention to promote nature-based risky play in early childhood centres. J. Environ. Psychol. 54, 139–150. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.11.001

Burghardt, G. (2012). “Defining and recognizing play,” in The oxford handbook of the development of play , ed. A. D. Pellegrini (New York, NY: Oxford University Press), doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195393002.013.0002

Canning, N. (2013). “Where’s the bear? Over there!”–creative thinking and imagination in den making. Early Child Dev. Care 183, 1042–1053. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2013.772989

Chawla, L. (2015). Benefits of nature contact for children. J. Plan. Lit. 30, 433–452. doi: 10.1177/0885412215595441

Coates, J. K., and Pimlott-Wilson, H. (2019). Learning while playing: Children’s Forest School experiences in the UK. Br. Educ. Res. J. 45, 21–40. doi: 10.1002/BERJ.3491

Crippen, M. (2017). Embodied cognition and perception: Dewey, science and skepticism. Contemp. Pragmatism 14, 112–134. doi: 10.1163/18758185-01401007

Dankiw, K. A., Tsiros, M. D., Baldock, K. L., and Kumar, S. (2020). The impacts of unstructured nature play on health in early childhood development: A systematic review. PLoS One 15:e0229006. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229006

Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Can. Psychol. 49, 182–185. doi: 10.1037/A0012801

Dyment, J., and O’Connell, T. S. (2013). The impact of playground design on play choices and behaviors of pre-school children. Child. Geogr. 11, 263–280. doi: 10.1080/14733285.2013.812272

Elliott, H. (2021). Whether the weather be cold, or whether the weather be hot … children’s play preferences outdoors across a year in one private pre-school setting. Int. J. Play 10, 25–42. doi: 10.1080/21594937.2021.1878771

Fjørtoft, I. (2001). The natural environment as a playground for children: The impact of outdoor play activities in pre-primary school children. Early Child. Educ. J. 29, 111–117.

Gibson, J. J. (2014). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hove: Psychology Press, doi: 10.4324/9781315740218

Gill, T. (2014). The benefits of children’s engagement with nature: A systematic literature review. Child. Youth Environ. 24, 10–34. doi: 10.7721/chilyoutenvi.24.2.0010

Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., and Singer, D. G. (2006). Play = learning: How play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and social-emotional growth. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Gopnik, A. (2020). Childhood as a solution to explore–exploit tensions. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 375:20190502. doi: 10.1098/RSTB.2019.0502

Gopnik, A., and Wellman, H. M. (2012). Reconstructing constructivism: Causal models, bayesian learning mechanisms, and the theory theory. Association 138, 1085–1108. doi: 10.1037/a0028044

Greeno, J. G. (1994). Gibson’s affordances. Psychol. Rev. 101, 336–342. doi: 10.4172/2165-7025.1000167

Gruenewald, D. A. (2003). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Educ. Res. 32, 3–12.

Hart, R. (1979). Children’s experience of place. New York, NY: Halsted Press.

Harwood, D., and Collier, D. R. (2017). The matter of the stick: Storying/(re)storying children’s literacies in the forest. J. Early Child. Lit. 17, 336–352. doi: 10.1177/1468798417712340

Heft, H. (1988). Affordances of children’s environments: A functional approach to environmental description. Environ. Q. 5, 29–37.

Herrington, S., and Brussoni, M. (2015). Beyond physical activity: The importance of play and nature-based play spaces for children’s health and development. Curr. Obes. Rep. 4, 477–483. doi: 10.1007/s13679-015-0179-2

Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2008). A mandate for playful learning in preschool: Presenting the evidence(9780195382716). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Huizinga, J. (2014). Homo ludens: A study of the play-element in culture. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315824161

Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 15, 169–182. doi: 10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2

Kyttä, M. (2002). Affordances of children’s environments in the context of cities, small towns, suburbs and rural villages in Finland and Belarus. J. Environ. Psychol. 22, 109–123. doi: 10.1006/jevp.2001.0249

Kyttä, M. (2004). The extent of children’s independent mobility and the number of actualized affordances as criteria for child-friendly environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 24, 179–198. doi: 10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00073-2

Lerstrup, I., and Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C. (2017). Affordances of outdoor settings for children in preschool: Revisiting heft’s functional taxonomy. Landsc. Res. 42, 47–62. doi: 10.1080/01426397.2016.1252039

Lockwood, C., Porritt, K., Munn, Z., Rittenmeyer, L., Salmond, S., Bjerrum, M., et al. (2020). “Chapter 2: Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence,” in JBI manual for evidence synthesis , eds E. Aromataris and Z. Munn. doi: 10.46658/JBIMES-20-03

Luchs, A., and Fikus, M. (2013). A comparative study of active play on differently designed playgrounds. J. Adventure Educ. Outdoor Learn. 13, 206–222. doi: 10.1080/14729679.2013.778784

Luchs, A., and Fikus, M. (2018). Differently designed playgrounds and preschooler’s physical activity play. Early Child Dev. Care 188, 281–295. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2016.1213726

Mackinder, M. (2017). Footprints in the woods:‘tracking’ a nursery child through a Forest School session. Education 3-13 45, 176–190. doi: 10.1080/03004279.2015.1069368

Mårtensson, F., Boldemann, C., Söderström, M., Blennow, M., Englund, J. E., and Grahn, P. (2009). Outdoor environmental assessment of attention promoting settings for preschool children. Health Place 15, 1149–1157. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2009.07.002

Mawson, W. B. (2014). Experiencing the “wild woods”: The impact of pedagogy on children’s experience of a natural environment. Eur. Early Child. Educ. Res. J. 22, 513–524. doi: 10.1080/1350293X.2014.947833

Maynard, T., Waters, J., and Clement, J. (2013). Child-initiated learning, the outdoor environment and the “underachieving” child. Early Years 33, 212–225. doi: 10.1080/09575146.2013.771152

Mcclain, C., and Vandermaas-Peeler, M. (2015). Social contexts of development in natural outdoor environments: Children’s motor activities, personal challenges and peer interactions at the river and the creek. J. Adventure Educ. Outdoor Learn. 16, 31–48. doi: 10.1080/14729679.2015.1050682

McCree, M., Cutting, R., and Sherwin, D. (2018). The Hare and the Tortoise go to Forest School: Taking the scenic route to academic attainment via emotional wellbeing outdoors. Early Child Dev. Care 188, 980–996. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2018.1446430

Miranda, N., Larrea, I., Muela, A., and Barandiaran, A. (2017). Preschool children’s social play and involvement in the outdoor environment. Early Educ. Dev. 28, 525–540. doi: 10.1080/10409289.2016.1250550

Moore, D., Morrissey, A.-M., and Robertson, N. (2019). “I feel like I’m getting sad there”: Early childhood outdoor playspaces as places for children’s wellbeing. Early Child Dev. Care 191, 933–951. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2019.1651306

Morrissey, A. M., Scott, C., and Rahimi, M. (2017). A comparison of sociodramatic play processes of preschoolers in a naturalized and a traditional outdoor space. Int. J. Play 6, 177–197. doi: 10.1080/21594937.2017.1348321

Nathan, P., and Pellegrini, A. D. (2010). The oxford handbook of the development of play. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1–408.

Nicolopoulou, A. (1993). Play, cognitive development, and the social world: Piaget, vygotsky, and beyond. Hum. Dev. 36, 1–23. doi: 10.1159/000277285

Noblit, G., and Hare, R. (2012). Meta-ethnography. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412985000

Norðdahl, K., and Einarsdóttir, J. (2015). Children’s views and preferences regarding their outdoor environment. J. Adventure Educ. Outdoor Learn. 15, 152–167. doi: 10.1080/14729679.2014.896746

Nye, E., Melendez-Torres, G. J., and Bonell, C. (2016). Origins, methods and advances in qualitative meta-synthesis. Rev. Educ. 4, 57–79. doi: 10.1002/rev3.3065

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 10, 1–11.

Parliamentary Counsel Office (n.d.). Te urewera act 2014 No 51 (as at 28 October 2021), public act – New Zealand Legislation. Available online at: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2014/0051/latest/whole.html (accessed June 7, 2022).

Piaget, J. (2013). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. London: Routledge, 1–296.

Puhakka, R., Rantala, O., Roslund, M. I., Rajaniemi, J., Laitinen, O. H., Sinkkonen, A., et al. (2019). Greening of daycare yards with biodiverse materials affords well-being, play and environmental relationships. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16:2948. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16162948

Richardson, T., and Murray, J. (2016). Are young children’s utterances affected by characteristics of their learning environments? A multiple case study. Early Child Dev. Care 187, 457–468. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2016.1211116

Roopnarine, J. L. (2012). “Cultural variations in beliefs about play, parent-child play, and children’s play: Meaning for childhood development,” in The oxford handbook of the development of play , ed. A. D. Pellegrini (New York, NY: Oxford University Press). doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195393002.013.0003

Rubin, K., Fein, G., and Vendenberg, B. (1983). “Play,” in Handbook of child psychology, socialization, personality and social development , Vol. 4, ed. E. Mavis Hetherington (New York, NY: Wiley), 693–774.

Sandseter, E. B. H. (2009). Affordances for risky play in preschool: The importance of features in the play environment. Early Child. Educ. J. 36, 439–446. doi: 10.1007/s10643-009-0307-2

Schulz, L. (2012). The origins of inquiry: Inductive inference and exploration in early childhood. Trends Cogn. Sci. 16, 382–389. doi: 10.1016/J.TICS.2012.06.004

Speldewinde, C., and Campbell, C. (2022). Mathematics learning in the early years through nature play. Int. J. Early Years Educ. doi: 10.1080/09669760.2022.2122026

Storli, R., and Løge Hagen, T. (2010). Affordances in outdoor environments and children’s physically active play in pre-school. Eur. Early Childhood Educ. Res. J. 18:4. doi: 10.1080/1350293X.2010.525923

Streelasky, J. (2019). A forest-based environment as a site of literacy and meaning making for kindergarten children. Literacy 53, 95–101. doi: 10.1111/lit.12155

Ulrich, R. S. (1983). “Aesthetic and affective response to natural environment,” in Behavior and the natural environment , eds I. Altman and J. F. Wohlwill (Boston, MA: Springer), 85–125. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4613-3539-9_4

United Nations (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child, Treaty Series, 1577. New York, NY: United Nations, 3.

van Oers, B. (2013). Is it play? Towards a reconceptualisation of role play from an activity theory perspective. Eur. Early Child. Educ. Res. J. 21, 185–198. doi: 10.1080/1350293X.2013.789199

Wente, A. O., Kimura, K., Walker, C. M., Banerjee, N., Fernández Flecha, M., MacDonald, B., et al. (2019). Causal learning across culture and socioeconomic status. Child Dev. 90, 859–875. doi: 10.1111/CDEV.12943

Wight, R. A., Kloos, H., Maltbie, C. V., and Carr, V. W. (2015). Can playscapes promote early childhood inquiry towards environmentally responsible behaviors? An exploratory study. Environ. Educ. Res. 22, 518–537. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2015.1015495

Wynberg, E. R., Boland, A., Raijmakers, M. E. J., and van der Veen, C. (2022). Towards a comprehensive view of object-oriented play. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 34, 197–228. doi: 10.1007/s10648-021-09608-7

Zamani, Z. (2013). The comparison of cognitive play affordances within natural and manufactured preschool settings , eds R. Awwad-Raffety and L. Manzo (McLean, VA: The Environmental Design Research Association), 162–167.

Zamani, Z. (2016). ‘The woods is a more free space for children to be creative; their imagination kind of sparks out there’: Exploring young children’s cognitive play opportunities in natural, manufactured and mixed outdoor preschool zones. J. Adventure Educ. Outdoor Learn. 16, 172–189. doi: 10.1080/14729679.2015.1122538

Zare Sakhvidi, M. J., Knobel, P., Bauwelinck, M., de Keijzer, C., Boll, L. M., Spano, G., et al. (2022). Greenspace exposure and children behavior: A systematic review. Sci. Total Environ. 824:153608.

Keywords : play, nature-based environment, play environment, early childhood education, nature play, cognitive development

Citation: Prins J, van der Wilt F, van der Veen C and Hovinga D (2022) Nature play in early childhood education: A systematic review and meta ethnography of qualitative research. Front. Psychol. 13:995164. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.995164

Received: 15 July 2022; Accepted: 04 October 2022; Published: 10 November 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Prins, van der Wilt, van der Veen and Hovinga. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Jannette Prins, [email protected]

† These authors have contributed equally to this work and share last authorship

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• About Early Care and Education
• Making Changes in ECE
• Public Health Strategy
• ECE Data and Statistics
• What Others Are Doing
• Early Care and Education Resources
• Advancing Farm to ECE
• Advancing Early Child Nutrition in ECE
• ECE State Licensing
• High-Impact Obesity Prevention Standards

CDC supports the collection or analysis of data relevant to obesity prevention activities in Early Care and Education (ECE) settings.

Early care and education

ECE State Indicator Report

State Licensing Scorecards

Achieving a State of Healthy Weight Report

Young children

Childhood Obesity Facts

Fast Facts: Obesity Among Children in WIC

Breastfeeding Data and Statistics National and state breastfeeding rates, hospital practices, public opinion, and breastfeeding and infant feeding practices

Consumption of Fruit, Vegetables, and Sugar Sweetened Beverages Among Young Children

Child Opportunity Index

Mapping Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) Participation

National Survey of Children's Health

Data, Trends, and Maps interactive database with national and state data about breastfeeding, fruits and vegetables, physical activity, sugar drinks, television watching, and obesity/weight.

Health Equity Data

Early Care and Education

Early care and education practices can support healthy eating and physical activity when children are young and perhaps for a lifetime.

For Everyone

Public health.

ChildTrends

• Black Children
• Indigenous Children

Poverty Matters for Children’s Well-being, but Good Policy Can Help

• Dana Thomson
• Kristin Anderson Moore

Latest from Child Trends

• Alicia Torres

• Vanessa Sacks
• Rebecca Madill
• Katherine Paschall

• Lorena Aceves
• Ja'Chelle Ball
• Joselyn Angeles-Figueroa
• Samantha Holquist

Latest Research

• Rebekah Stafford
• Samuel Beckwith

• Martha Zaslow
• Tamara Halle
• Nicole Forry

• Adapted Measure of Math Engagement Research Group

• Jane Finocharo
• Jennifer Manlove
• Krystle McConnell

• Claire Kelley
• Alyssa Scott
• Diane Hsieh
• Marisa Crowder

• Mallory Warner
• Annie Davis Schoch

Research on Child Trends’ Partner Sites

• Sarah Kelley
• Kevin Ferreira van Leer
• Zabryna Balén

• Julia L. Mendez
• Danielle A. Crosby
• Christina Stephens

• Abigail Palmer Molina
• Rosy Gonzalez

• Elizabeth Wildsmith

Newsletters

• I would like updates on Child Trends research
• I would like updates about upcoming webinars
• I would like alerts about job openings
• I would like updates on Black children & families research

© Copyright 2024 ChildTrends Privacy Statement

• Child Welfare
• Early Childhood
• Hispanic Children
• Diversity and Inclusion
• Government Contract Vehicles
• Research Independence