A World without Play
www.btha.co.uk
Contents
Expert View
p03
Expert Biographies
p10
Literature Review
p14
www.btha.co.uk
Foreword
This report is part of a wider enquiry conducted by Play England and the British Toy & Hobby
Association (BTHA) for the Make Time to Play campaign, on the impact of play deprivation on children,
families and communities entitled "A World Without Play".
The Make time to play expert panel convened on Friday 6 May 2011. The British Toy and Hobby
Association (BTHA) and Play England would like to thank all panel members (Dr Amanda Gummer, Dr
Len Almond, Professor Peter Blatchford, Ruth Clement, Tim Gill, Professor Jeffrey Goldstein, Wendy
Russell and Catherine Prisk) for their valuable professional insights.
In the context of a study on a world without play, the panel was keen to emphasise that whilst there are
serious detrimental effects on children when they are unable to play, play in itself should not be seen as
a means to another end. Play, for children, is as natural as eating or sleeping; and as Adam Philips
asserts, ‘there is no purpose to the child’s life other than the pleasure of living it. It is not the child, in
other words, who believes in something called development.’ The panel was also cautious of depicting
British children as living in a ‘world without play.’ Whilst the consensus was that in recent years children
have less opportunity to play, due to various pressures on their lives, it cannot be said that children no
longer play. The panel made recommendations of measures that should be taken to ensure children
continue to have the time and opportunity to play.
Play and children’s social, emotional and educational development
The panel began by emphasising the strong link between children’s play and forming social
relationships. Professor Peter Blatchford has observed that about 80% of play at school break times is
social. Blatchford and his colleague Ed Baines have identified a number of ways that play and games at
break times facilitate social development and have coined the term ‘social scaffold’ to describe one
function that play serves for children at school break times. Through play children make friends,
develop social skills and learn reciprocity - how to interact with each other. Len Almond identified that
the act of playfulness has a powerful impact on the brain, and this has to impact on learning. Evidence
has shown that play teaches skills that are pivotal for schooling such as friendship formation, social
skills and working out how to become part of a group. These social abilities have been seen to help
collaborative group working, school learning and academic success and help in later life.
For many children, the panel agreed, time for play at school is limited. Peter Blatchford’s national
surveys, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, have shown clearly that over the past 20 years there has
been a progressive reduction in both the number and duration of school break times, and this is
because of pressures of the curriculum and a negative view about behaviour at break times. The
surveys also showed that the vast majority of pupils value break time because they can meet friends
and play. Worryingly, for some pupils break times in school are the only time they get for such activity.
To compound the issue, breaks are often identified for the purpose of eating and supplementary
learning only. The panel recognised the tragic irony that whilst legislation exists to preserve the
conditions of farmed and free-range chickens, no such legislation exists to give children the necessary
outlet to unwind during the school day. Indeed, employment law directs that teachers must have breaks
during their working day, yet children, who arguably have an even greater need than adults, are
overlooked in this policy area. Jeffrey Goldstein cited some research on how Japanese schools are
structured; to aid concentration, younger children are allocated more frequent but shorter breaks, which
gradually become less frequent but lengthen as they grow older, with the aim of increasing attention
and other academic benefits in the classroom. The panel cited Pellegrini’s studies which have shown
that children learn more in lessons after they are given the opportunity to play. In addition, Wendy
Russell drew from Bjorklund’s ‘cognitive immaturity hypothesis’, observing that having the freedom to
play during school breaks restores children’s belief in their cognitive and social skills and therefore their
capacity to engage in cognitive tasks as they have control in their “play world”. Seemingly pointless
behaviour through play is valuable to children as it increases their self-belief and this increases their
www.btha.co.uk
confidence to learn when back in the classroom. Anecdotal evidence from the panel identified that
having the space to play outdoors is crucial for children’s social interaction; therefore space constraints
in a teaching environment can have a negative impact on the social development of pupils.
The panel counselled against adoption of the old Chinese proverb ‘working hard is beneficial, play is
worthless.’ The phrase highlights that play can sometimes be seen as a waste of time by those who
view time as needing to be ‘productive’ and seek tangible evidence of ‘time well spent’. Allowing
children the opportunity to play, both during breaks and as part of play-based learning, was collectively
seen as beneficial. Children come back from play breaks refreshed, energised and ready to
concentrate. Having the chance to let off steam through play also reduces behavioural issues in the
classroom. It was highlighted that the reduction in teaching time lost to addressing classroom
behavioural issues could be helped by giving children the chance to play and learn to get on with each
other; this could be significant economically as well as educationally. Yet, there is no universal
recognition that play benefits children in the school environment, or at least educational establishments
are devaluing the importance of play whilst under pressure to conform to academic directives.
The panel cited an example of a school in Baltimore, US, where pupils were given the choice of no
recess or highly structured sport in the belief that the children could not cope with or be trusted with the
freedom to play without it leading to bad behaviour. Fears were voiced of a profound misunderstanding
when schools take away or structure school break time, a misunderstanding that the use is purely for
physical activity thus ignoring the social and other benefits. Some schools restrict time for play in the
belief that bullying and anti-social behaviour is exacerbated during this time. Schools have shown a
reduction in bullying by reducing or eliminating breaks, however this has removed the opportunity but
not the problem. Children need the opportunity to experience social situations and to learn how to deal
with the every day challenges of life, or such issues will perpetuate. Bullying in school needs to be
tackled so those involved understand why it is wrong, and develop strategies for conflict management,
rather than simply removing the opportunity and therefore denying other children the right to positive
social interactions.
It should also be noted that the act of playing in itself gives children the opportunity to learn for
themselves informally, and this complements the formal learning environment. Research by Ruth
Clement suggests that increasingly some parents identify play’s main purpose as assisting a child’s
educational development and are more likely to seek to aid this development through the use of
educational toys, overlooking the wider developmental and other benefits of play in general. Clement
surmised that this is perhaps due to the fact that many of these wider benefits, such as cognitive,
conceptual and social development, are less tangible or visible to adult observation. It could also be due
to societal emphasis on the importance of academic education, thus parents are often tempted to
‘shortcut’ by combining the time children play with a “worthwhile” educational outcome.
Ruth Clement identified research that indicates children often feel they need permission to undertake
playful activities that previously were everyday behaviours, such as playing with water. It could be seen
that children are increasingly conditioned into conforming to adult-led play activities which could have a
detrimental effect on their ability to develop imagination, cognitive ability, confidence and social skills for
example. Parents should therefore encourage children to understand that playful activity is a positive
part of family life, even when unstructured. Children will naturally make use of toys and alternative
props to play, and the only thing that will curtail them is adult chastisement.
Toys were seen as an enjoyable and beneficial prop for children as part of a wide range of play
experiences they need to be able to choose from. Toys and other playthings can lengthen the amount
of time a child spends playing as the prop can make the game more complex. Jeffrey Goldstein
recommended that giving children props for play does not limit their creativity or imaginations, nor does
taking away physical objects as children will find opportunities to play, even in extreme situations.
Children take an active role and should be encouraged to use their imaginations with the props they use
to take play into new directions.
www.btha.co.uk
The group generally accepted that the use of new media play does not need to be discouraged, and
that recent research has highlighted how new media, far from replacing informal play, can be
incorporated into, and even enhance, children’s’ games and play. Jeffrey Goldstein observed that
children may take ideas for fantasy play from the media or other sources but they always 'edit' these
scripts in creative ways. In this light, children’s response is more ‘editor’ than ‘video recorder’. A general
rule of ‘everything in moderation’ should be adopted. It was noted by the panel that often the only place
where children have unsupervised play is online. The panel discussed the existence of a gulf between
adults and children with new technology and that until adults become ‘digital natives’ they won’t
necessarily understand the benefits of certain playful activity that the current generation of children
have developed. It was noted however that too much screen time can lead to a lack of experience of
reality, often in more scary settings than real life offers. It was felt there may be a need for more
research on the impact of time spent watching television. Len Almond asserted that particularly younger
children benefit from playful interaction which television cannot provide; the experience of interacting
with things you can see and feel is crucial for children, and television cannot meet that need.
Wendy Russell observed that adults can sometimes make judgements on what is beneficial or nonbeneficial play. She observed that generally speaking children seek out opportunities for playing
because it is enjoyable, the feeling of life being worth it for the moment of playing is beneficial in itself.
The panel universally identified that play fighting and ‘rough and tumble’ play is frequently curtailed by
adults, as it is misinterpreted as poor behaviour, with fears that real fighting will ensue. However it
should be recognised that in fact children (especially boys) will frequently play fight with their friends
and there is a value of allowing children to do so, this value is very much for the ‘here and now’, not just
developmental. Play fighting builds social skills and the boundaries of what is acceptable behaviour
(children tell each other when things have gone too far and learn for next time). Cath Prisk
recommended that children’s workers and some parents need to better understand the difference
between play fighting and real fighting, citing the example that owners of dogs know the difference
between playing and real fighting in their pets, and parents too can usually identify the difference in their
children - from the amount of time the play continues and the facial expressions and body language of
the children. Interestingly it was noted that women break up play fights faster than men, often seeing
aggressive behaviour rather than a form of social play. Peter Blatchford cited Peter K Smith, ‘if they stay
friends, it’s play fighting.’
Play and children’s health and wellbeing
The panel discussed how children’s health is being hindered by a lack of opportunities for play.
Concerns were particularly raised that children are not engaging in as much physically active play as
they need to. Wendy Russell probed that play can help alleviate or even prevent some health issues
such as obesity, mental health and hyperkinetic disorders but cautioned that it can’t be taken in isolation
from all other aspects of children’s minds, genes, bodies and environments. Wendy Russell asserted
that whilst concerns about the quality of contemporary childhood may to some extent be warranted, it
does not seem that this equates to the kinds of stress children experience through complete play
deprivation as described in the literature. Dr Len Almond led discussions on emerging evidence of a
decline in British children’s physical activity levels, with a decline in physically active play a contributing
factor. Evidence shows that physically active play can meet children’s recommended daily physical
activity levels, and therefore it is crucial to the obesity agenda. Almond identified that 16% of five year
olds are obese, and this proportion doubles by the age of eleven. Whilst obesity in this age group is
often attributed to unhealthy eating, Almond counters that by the age of five, most children’s eating
habits are settled, therefore the increase in proportion of obese children by the age of eleven must be
due to a reduction in activity levels. As sedentary behaviour is now seen as an independent risk factor
for health, addressing sedentary behaviour and low levels of physical activity in children is a major
component in reducing children’s obesity and preventing future health problems. The current British
recommendation for children is at least 60 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity each day, and
more if a person is obese. Almond recommends that physically active play is a major component for
reducing the obesity agenda and therefore an influence on children’s later health.
www.btha.co.uk
Whilst gym membership and healthy lifestyle promotion is big business for the adult market, for children
an enjoyable and cost effective method of reversing rising obesity levels is to allow children to simply
play. Taking the analogy of an adult wanting to keep fit, motivation is very often a limiting factor. For
children however, the desire to run outside, to climb, to scoot fast down a path, is unbounded. Children
do not play actively because they are consciously trying to stay fit, they play in this way because they
naturally want and need to as human beings. Amanda Gummer suggested that there is a natural
‘virtuous circle’ in which increasing the level of activity increases playfulness, and playing increases
levels of physical activity. Gummer suggested that children’s eating and sleeping patterns improve
when they have had active play during the day; Eat well - Play more - Sleep better, with active play at
the centre of the cycle.
The group identified that when children walk to school (or any other destination) with other children,
their physical activity levels naturally increase through play. Often a limiting factor for children’s
physically active play is adults’ time, especially where work pressures affect family life. Ruth Clement
identified that time pressures on working parents mean that spending time playing with their children or
indeed walking them to school can be difficult, and that working parents often feel the guilt associated
with this. Clement suggested that schemes designed to increase children’s physical activity levels
should try to incorporate practical solutions which enable more parents to participate, solutions such as
encouraging schools to open their gates earlier so that working parents can walk their children to
school, whilst still arriving at work on time. Len Almond cited another solution, giving the example of a
school that had painted yellow lines 250 metres either side of the school gates. This forced parents and
children to leave the car and walk the final part of the journey to school, and improved children’s
attention at the beginning of lessons substantially. Wendy Russell identified that many parents fear
being judged if they don’t accompany their children to and from school, and therefore take children by
car, increasing the amount of traffic on the road. Discussing the danger of traffic to children, Russell
quoted Hillman, cautioning, what we do is remove the children, whereas perhaps we should consider
removing the cars. The panel suggested that parents should encourage their child’s friends to
accompany their child when they are thinking of going out. Not only is it more fun and safe for children,
but it also increases the likelihood that they will engage in physically active play. It also makes it easier
to encourage a child out for a walk as they see it as a fun activity with their friend and so parents should
hear fewer complaints.
Tim Gill voiced fears of a proportion of children who now live a ‘constrained childhood.’ The panel
identified an emerging term of ‘bucket babies’, in which children are strapped into car seats, push
chairs, high chairs and cots for long parts of the day for ease of parenting. In some very young children
their amount of sedentary behaviour could be as much as 10-12 hours a day; equivalent to a long haul
flight – every day. This could potentially have an impact on neuron development as well as an impact
on physical health. Len Almond recommended that parents need to be encouraged to facilitate play
with younger children, especially with children under the age of one, and this should form a crucial part
of parenting advice.
Amanda Gummer and Len Almond considered that a lack of social play in particular can have an impact
on children’s emotional and mental health. The panel suggested that a lack of play can be a
contributing factor to mental health issues in children, but there are other contributing factors too and
more research is needed. Play, because it is fun and gives pleasure and enjoyment, can have an
impact on adaptive systems which make children more resilient and this may make them more able to
cope with pressures which can lead to mental health issues. Play can help give children a more positive
outlook, increase cortisone in the body, alter stress receptors, change children’s attitudes to friends and
places and encourage more creative learning. Wendy Russell suggested that rather than play helping to
develop specific skills, it helps build ‘architectural foundations’ for the adaptive systems that contribute
to resilience. Russell described that for children, play makes them feel better and consequently engage
more, which in turn makes them feel better and creates a positive cycle, leading to healthy children
enjoying their childhood and becoming healthy adults too.
www.btha.co.uk
The panel reiterated that whilst play has benefits for children’s health, wellbeing and development, the
main benefit of play for children is that it is a fundamental part of being a human being. Jeffrey
Goldstein quoted Brian Sutton-Smith, ‘children don’t play for something in the future’. Children play
because it gives a sense of freedom, a lack of constraints, and it is fun. Blatchford summarised that play
is about the fun (the ‘here and now’), secondarily it is about development, and on the whole it is about
being human.
Play and communities
Wendy Russell identified that decreasing levels of play have not resulted purely from personal
behaviour, it’s about the environment, and lots can be done to make it easier for children to be able to
play. The group agreed that giving children the chance to play and be physically active is not just a
parent’s responsibility but society’s as a whole. They concurred that children need more than a nuclear
family and that they adage ‘it takes a village to raise a child’ is clichéd but true. Tim Gill referred to
recent calls for streets to be occasionally closed to traffic to allow children to play freely and safely.
Jeffrey Goldstein described the practice in Utrecht of providing an infrastructure in which communities
can insert poles into roads to close them off to traffic and create instant playgrounds at a cost of circa
fifty pounds. Neighbourhoods rotate road closures outside rush hours and school hours across different
neighbourhood streets to give a fair balance of road use. The committee suggested that such a system
could be a way for communities to come together to become more play and activity friendly.
Tim Gill suggested that children who experience every day life in their community feel a greater sense
of connection and reciprocity beyond the immediate family and this paves the way for neighbourliness
and trust. Amanda Gummer recommended that neighbourhood play can be an antidote to social
isolation. Wendy Russell observed that children who travel in their community by car are more likely to
identify threats in their neighbourhood such (as strangers and crime), and very often judge the threat
disproportionately, whilst children who walk in their neighbourhood will view such threats moderately
and consider traffic the greatest threat.
The panel suggested that the Canadian model of grading local communities on their play opportunities
could be adopted. Canadian provinces are given a happiness rating including the play and leisure
facilities they provide. Adopting such a system would identify the UK’s most playful communities and
create child friendly cities.
Summary
The panel unanimously agreed that whilst play has important benefits for children’s health,
development, wellbeing and social abilities, it must crucially be seen as a fundamental element of being
www.btha.co.uk
human. A world without play is a world of robots. Without play, we are functional, potentially productive,
but not human. Play, for children, is a freedom that must be protected and should never be taken away.
The panel recognised that giving children the opportunity to play is beneficial for wider communities too,
and to ensure that children can play is a collective responsibility. If we want the children of Britain to
enjoy their childhood and grow into healthy, happy and socially responsible adults, it is not just up to
parents; we all have a role to play.
Recommendations for a play-friendly society
The panel made recommendations which can broadly be addressed to schools, local authorities/policy
makers and families.
Recommendations for schools










Give children the time to play at school, to burn of excess energy, socialise and enjoy
themselves. Reverse the trend of supplementary lessons encroaching on play time.
Target senior management to reemphasise the consequence and cost of a lack of play, to
reverse the decline of play time in schools.
Research should be provided to give evidence of the value of play time at school, both to
educational attainment and social value. Also economically in the preventative effect that play
can have reducing behavioural issues, thus increasing staff time to teach.
Identify practical recommendations of play opportunities that schools can introduce.
Work with school architects and designers, focussing on the optimum environment that can
enable children to play and counter the view that new schools can be built without play facilities
or playgrounds.
Enhance pupil voices to give children the opportunity to make recommendations for improving
the school environment for play.
Address attitudes to certain types of play, promoting the benefits of play fighting and rough and
tumble play, and supporting practitioners to identify play and non-play behaviour to avoid
unnecessary curtailment of children’s play.
Introduce measures to support parents to allow their children to walk accompanied or
independently to school. For example, open school grounds earlier so that working parents can
walk to school with their children, and open later to enable children to play until parents can walk
to collect them from school.
Recognise that the time children spend at school is crucial to their daily play needs. Children
should ideally be able to play before school, during a morning break, at lunchtime, during an
afternoon break and after school.
Recognise that the school setting has a pivotal role in collective community upbringing, and that
play at school acts as an important social conduit.
Recommendations for local authorities and policy makers





Relax red tape of street closures and introduce practical measures or programmes to encourage
more mutual use of public space.
Ensure that children have enough designated spaces to play, but also recognise that the public
realm should be welcoming and accessible for all community members, which includes children
and their need to play.
Work with planners, both transport and built environment, to ensure that children’s play needs
are considered in new developments and redevelopment of local space.
Introduce a ‘green flag’ or report card system grading local areas on child and play-friendly
criteria.
Work with schools, recognising their role as important community settings, to introduce
measures to support children’s play needs.
www.btha.co.uk


Work with health practitioners to promote the benefits of play to children’s wellbeing and future
health.
Support parents to be able to feel confident allowing their children to play unsupervised in their
local community.
Recommendations for families








Throughout childhood, introduce small steps to giving your children the freedom to play
unsupervised.
Realise that the threat of strangers doing harm to your child is rare, and whilst it should not be
ignored, the more children can play freely, the greater their ability to manage their own safety
independently.
Recognise the importance of play, and that whilst benefits can be physically intangible, play is
crucial for your child’s development, health, for building friendships and for their happiness – all
play is beneficial, even if it is not “educational”.
Recognise that physically active play can meet your child’s daily recommended activity levels
and introduce more opportunities for your children to engage in physically active play. An easy
way is simply to bring your children’s friends with you when you go out - the children will
naturally play actively without need for encouragement.
Notice the difference in your family life when your children have the opportunity to play actively.
Build active play into your daily routine to improve the family environment – it can help to reduce
arguments, improve eating habits and improve sleep.
Recognise that play fighting and rough and tumble play are important elements of children’s
natural behaviour, and learn to recognise the difference between play fighting and real disputes.
Make the time to walk to school and other destinations, this is important time for your child to
play actively, socially and make sense of their environment. Try to take turns with other parents
to supervise younger children.
Don’t feel guilty if you don’t have time to play with your children. Kids benefit from playing
independently, and giving them the freedom to play unsupervised is not only good for your
children, it gives you the time for other priorities too.
www.btha.co.uk
www.btha.co.uk
Dr Amanda Gummer (Chair)
Dr. Amanda Gummer (PhD, PCHE, BA Hons.) is a psychologist specialising in play and parenting.
Amanda established FUNdamentals in 2004 carrying out consultancy, research and development for
organisations involved with parents and children. Amanda has recently launched the Fundamentals
Foundation, a social enterprise designed to promote healthy child development and social
responsibility. As well as being an active member of the National Toy Council she is also a member of
the play research network and the International Toy Research Association.
Dr. Len Almond
Dr. Len Almond is currently Visiting Professor at St. Mary’s University College. Len is the former
Director of BHF National Centre for Physical Activity and Health and currently a member of the UK
Early Years Physical Activity Guidelines editorial team. The Guidelines will be released later in May and
have significant implications for children’s health and an improvement in physically active play
opportunities.
Professor Peter Blatchford
Peter Blatchford is Professor in Psychology and Education at the Institute of Education. His main area
of interest concerns school factors affecting school learning and peer relations. He co-directed a major
ESRC TLRP project on improving the effectiveness of pupil collaborative group work in classrooms. He
has an international reputation for his work on school breaktimes/recess and peer relations (Playtime in
the Primary School, and Breaktime and the School: Understanding and Changing Playground
Behaviour, both Routledge; Social Life in School: Pupils' experiences of breaktime from 7 to 16 years
(Falmer Press). He also
co-wrote the textbook The Child at School with Tony Pellegrini (Edward Arnold). More recently he and
Ed Baines had a chapter on games and peer social relations in the Oxford Handbook of the
Development of Play (2011), and a chapter on peer relations in school in the International Handbook of
Psychology in Education (2010).
He has also directed pioneering large scale study on the educational effects of class size differences
and pupil adult ratios (the CSPAR project) and the deployment and impact of Teaching Assistants in
schools (the DISS project).
Ruth Clement
Since 2005 Ruth Clement has been in charge of Business Intelligence and Strategic Insight in the UK
for Mattel, the largest global toy company. Mattel employs 30,000 employees worldwide and defines its
leadership as ‘the ability to develop and communicate a compelling picture of the future that inspires
and motivates others to take action’. Ruth is responsible for championing ‘Thought Leadership’ within
the UK organisation. She acts as “internal consultant” to the business, with a team of analysts and
market researchers to embed business intelligence and insight into strategic and operational planning,
and to shape creative thinking. Ruth joined Mattel in 1999 as Senior Marketing Manager for the Girls toy
business, transforming the key brand portfolio from stagnation into +32% growth within months of her
arrival. In 2003 she took on the Infant Preschool business, Fisher Price, delivering +11% growth in toys,
building its licensed portfolio with partners such as the BBC, Nickelodeon and Disney, and successfully
extending the brand into the baby equipment market. After graduating with a BA (Hons) degree in
Modern Languages and Economics, Ruth started out as an import buyer for the grocers, (Tesco,
Sainsburys and M&S) before embarking on a career which spans 20 years and encompasses brand
consultancy, marketing, product development, category management and consumer insight. Prior to
joining Mattel Ruth’s experience centred around managing FMCG categories from drinks and biscuits to
health and beauty (Wella, P&G), all related to marketing to youth or children. Perry Else
Since 1996, Perry has regularly been asked to give presentations and workshops on play theory and
human development to a variety of audiences in the UK, Europe and the USA. The success of this work
led Perry to form his own company (Ludemos) in 2000, contributing to national policy agendas and
quality assessment initiatives in the related areas of children's work and community regeneration – Play
England, Children's Play Council, SkillsActive, London Play, Children’s Workforce development Council
(CWDC), Local Government Association, Development Trust Association, PlayEducation, Kids Club
www.btha.co.uk
Network (4Children), JNCTP, Cache. Perry teaches at Sheffield Hallam University of the BA Hons
Children and Playwork Degree. He also organises and delivers the outdoor conference Beauty of Play,
which started in 2003 and comprises two days of playful discussion about play and playwork in the
open air. In his spare time Perry makes and flies kites and is a trustee of several charities.
Tim Gill
Tim Gill is one of the UK’s leading thinkers on childhood, and is an effective advocate for change. His
work focuses on children’s play and free time. Tim’s book No Fear: Growing up in a risk-averse society
was published in 2007, and he is co-author of the Government sponsored publication Managing Risk in
Play Provision: Implementation Guide. In 2009 Tim was awarded an honorary doctorate by Edge Hill
University in recognition of his “outstanding contribution to improving children's lives through
challenging our views of childhood in a 'no risk' culture”. Tim appears regularly on radio and television,
and writes for the mainstream and specialist press. He has advised political parties and thinktanks
across the political spectrum, and has carried out consultancies for major NGOs and public bodies
including the Mayor of London, the National Trust and the Forestry Commission. In 2002, while Director
of the Children’s Play Council (now Play England) Tim led the first ever Government-sponsored review
of children’s play. Tim’s website is www.rethinkingchildhood.com.
Professor Jeffrey Goldstein
Jeffrey Goldstein received a PhD in psychology from Ohio State University. He was
professor of psychology at Temple University (Philadelphia) until 1991, and in the
Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, Utrecht University, The Netherlands, from 19922006, and at University College, Utrecht University, until 2010. In 2010 he became a research associate
in Media and Performance at the Research Institute for History & Culture, Utrecht University. He is
author or editor of 16 books including The Handbook of Computer Game Studies (with
Joost Raessens. MIT Press, 2005); Toys, Games and Media (with David Buckingham & Gilles
Brougére. Erlbaum/Taylor & Francis 2004); Toys, Play and Child Development (Cambridge University
Press 1994); and Why We Watch: The Attractions of Violent Entertainment (Oxford University Press,
1998). Goldstein is a fellow of both the American Psychological Association and the Association for
Psychological Science. He is chairman of the National Toy Council (London.
http://www.btha.co.uk/value_of_play/toy_council.php) and serves on boards of the
Netherlands Institute for the Classification of Audiovisual Media (www.kijkwijzer.nl), and PEGI, the
European video games rating board (www.pegi.info). He is co-founder with Brian Sutton-Smith and Jorn
Steenhold of the International Toy Research Association (www.toyresearch.org). In 2001 he received
the BRIO Prize (Sweden) for research ‘for the benefit and development of children and young people.’
He is on the Editorial Board of Humor: International Journal of Humor Research and the International
Journal of Early Childhood Education.
Professor Anne Power
Since 1965 Anne has been involved in European and American housing and urban problems. In 1966
she worked with Martin Luther King's 'End Slums' campaign in Chicago, and on her return to Britain,
she lived and worked in inner-London, organising many housing and community-based projects in
Islington, Hackney and Tower Hamlets. From 1979 to 1989 she worked for the Department of the
Environment and Welsh Office, setting up Priority Estates Projects to rescue run-down estates all over
the UK. In 1991 she became founding director of the National Communities Resource Centre at
Trafford Hall in Chester which provides residential training and pump priming support for people living
and working in low income communities in order to help residents tackle local problems directly, and is
currently Chair. From 2000 to 2009 she was a Commissioner on the Sustainable Development
Commission (SDC). She was awarded an MBE in 1983 for work in Brixton, and a CBE in June 2000 for
services to regeneration and resident participation. Anne was a member of the government’s Urban
Task Force and sits on the Green Deal External Advisory Panel for DECC. Anne became a Professor of
Social Policy at the London School of Economics in 1996 and is Head of LSE Housing and
Communities, a research group based within the Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion. She is author
of many books, reports and articles on housing,
www.btha.co.uk
cities, environmental problems and low-income communities.
Dr Wendy Russell
Wendy Russell divides her working time between being a Senior Lecturer on the
undergraduate and postgraduate programmes in Play and Playwork at the University of
Gloucestershire, working as an independent play and playwork consultant, and her own research on
play and playwork. She discovered adventure playgrounds in London in 1975 and was smitten. She has
worked in the play sector ever since, in face-to-face playwork, development work, research,
management and mainly in play/playwork education and training. Her freelance work has included
designing and delivering training courses from entry to degree level, and working on a range of
development, strategic, evaluation and research projects for local authorities, the private sector and
local and national voluntary organisations. Key recent publications include Reframing Playwork,
Reframing Challenging Behaviour (Nottingham City Council, 2006); Playwork Voices (edited with
Bridget Handscomb and John Fitzpatrick, LCPET, 2007); Play for a Change (with Stuart Lester, NCB,
2008) and Children’s Right to Play: An examination of the importance of play in the lives of children
worldwide (with Stuart Lester, Bernard van Leer Foundation, 2010).
www.btha.co.uk
www.btha.co.uk
Introduction
This report is part of a wider enquiry conducted by Play England and the British Toy & Hobby
Association (BTHA) for the Make Time to Play Campaign, on the impact of play deprivation on children,
families and communities. This body of research will inform a campaign around the concept of "A World
Without Play".
Play is fundamental to the enjoyment of childhood, and evidence also shows that it is essential to
children's health, well-being and future life chances. Obesity, rickets and attention deficit disorder are
just some of the growing problems in children that health experts have linked to a lack of particular
forms of play, and research also shows a clear link between play and learning. This literature review
summarises recent evidence and thinking into the benefits of children’s play and the impact that
children not playing can have individually and for the communities in which they live.
Summary
Defining play has been problematic (Power, 2000) but an attempt to distil the essence of play into a
statement is perhaps best expressed as through the Playwork Principles (Play Wales, 2005):
‘All children and young people need to play. The impulse to play is innate. Play is a biological,
psychological and social necessity, and is fundamental to the healthy development and well being of
individuals and communities.’
The ‘principles’ then go onto accentuate the notions of the vital and innate nature of play:
‘Play is a process that is freely chosen, personally directed and intrinsically motivated. That is, children
and young people determine and control the content and intent of their play, by following their own
instincts, ideas and interests, in their own way for their own reasons.’
This review of the literature clearly demonstrates that play is key to physical, mental and social
wellbeing, but has been ‘overlooked’ in many areas. Play may be viewed as an ‘unaffordable luxury’ in
modern society, and instead children attend more organised activities which are thought to be more
educational. Whilst playing, children can experience real emotions, create their own uncertainty,
experience the unexpected, respond to new situations and adapt to a wide variety of situations. Play
enables children to form friendships and attachments to adults and to places, allowing for the
development of familiarity and intimacy with both. It can provide opportunities for independent learning
and building confidence, resilience, self-esteem and self-efficacy (Lester and Russell 2008; NICE 2010;
Coalter and Taylor 2001). Play between parents and their children can strengthen their bond and
relationship and parents playing with young children can help children’s development – indeed active
involvement of parents in their children’s play might be one example of a 'positive parenting skill' which
could be critical in the early development of children's positive behaviours (Gardner and Ward 2000).
Playing with toys can be pivotal to a child’s development and toys that children enjoy playing with at
different ages can assist in specific areas of development for example cognitive and language
development. Outdoor play has obvious benefits for increasing levels of physical activity, but can also
have positive influences on other areas of a child’s wellbeing and development including the opportunity
to develop an understanding and respect for the natural world. Playtime at school could offer children a
unique opportunity to advance their interacting skills and social cognitive recourses through informal
self-directed play. However, playtime may have decreased by as much as 50 per cent since the 1970s.
Children and others in the local community benefit from children playing outside in their neighbourhoods
as (amongst numerous benefits) it fosters positive social relationships for children and adults alike,
improves perceptions of children as being valuable to a community and increases children’s propensity
to act and think positively towards their local neighbourhood.
www.btha.co.uk
The evidence highlighted in this review confirms that it is important to allow children every opportunity to
play as this can only benefit their physical and mental health, wellbeing, and social and emotional
development, as well as being an invaluable part of family life and communities.
Section 1: Play and children’s health and well-being
‘It is widely understood that play is crucial to children's healthy development and quality of life’ (Foley
2008 p.6).
In 2007 a UNICEF report on the well-being of children around the world, ranked the UK at the bottom of
the world's 21 richest countries. For all six parameters: material well-being, health and safety,
educational well-being, family and peer relationships, behaviour and risks and subjective well-being, the
UK was amongst the bottom five countries (UNICEF 2007). Since then there has been considerable
debate in the UK about ways in which the childhoods of children might be enhanced. This Highlight
discusses the contribution of play, to children’s well-being, development and health.
The freedom and autonomy of play allows children ‘to develop and demonstrate a sense of themselves’
and to meet their need for ‘the peace of a long, slow-paced, active and engaged childhood’ (Jenkinson
p.84). As children grow their play increases in social, physical and cognitive complexity, reflecting their
interests and abilities (Wood 2007). They value highly the short spaces and times they are free to play
within and nearby their homes (Mayall, B 2007).
The concept of well-being is multi-dimensional, encompassing physical, emotional and social well-being
and focusing on children’s immediate as well as their future lives (Statham 2010; Saunders 1997: cited
in Chambers 2002). Other factors used to discuss children's well-being in the UK and other Western
societies, include the concepts of need, rights, poverty, quality of life and social exclusion (Axford
2008). Children’s definition of ‘happiness’ is strongly associated with ‘doing what you want when you
want to’, ‘getting what you want’, or ‘something unexpected, out of the ordinary happening’ and is
therefore seen as a temporary state (Counterpoint 2008).
There is considerable evidence to show that there is an important role for play in children’s physical,
emotional and psychological well-being (Lester and Russell 2008).
Section 2: Play and children’s development
`Without play, a child's ability to develop and function effectively in the world is at best impaired and at
worst as good as impossible' (Hubbuck 2009, p127).
Play is an essential part of normal childhood development and helps to develop a child’s co-ordination,
strength and social skills (Bird 2007). When children play they are emotionally and physically involved in
what they are doing, using all their senses (Jenkinson 2005). Through play they can learn to negotiate,
take risks and overcome obstacles, develop friendships and a sense of belonging to a group.
Benefits of play are both immediate and long-term and contribute to all aspects of children’s health and
development including their physical and mental well-being, their educational development, brain
development, opportunities for language development , spatial and mathematical learning, creativity,
and the formation of identity (Coalter and Taylor 2001; Wood 2007; Zigler and Bishop-Josef 2009). It
provides a place to ‘experiment with the acquisition of new skills, the complexity of relationships, taking
risks, and thinking about complicated ideas’ (Hubbuck 2009, p128).
Play theorist Brian Sutton-Smith, in his book The Ambiguity of Play (1997), believes that the human
child is born with enormous brain potential, which if not used will die: ‘Not only are children developing
the neurological foundations that will enable problem solving, language and creativity, they are also
learning while they are playing. They are learning how to relate to others, how to calibrate their muscles
and bodies and how to think in abstract terms. Through their play children learn how to learn. What is
www.btha.co.uk
acquired through play is not specific information but a general mind set towards solving problems that
includes both abstraction and combinatorial flexibility where children string bits of behaviour together to
form novel solutions to problems requiring the restructuring of thought or action’.
Playing appears to create new neural and chemical reactions in the brain which support the
development of the brain's capacity to link motivation, emotion and reward and coordinate the systems
for perception, movement and thought (Lester and Russell 2008). ‘What play does is to create a sense
that for the time of playing, life is worth living, and that motivates children to play more, creating further
opportunities for these benefits to accrue’ (Lester and Russell 2008 p20: quoting Sutton-Smith).
Children play with toys only for enjoyment and indeed many everyday or household objects are as
appealing to a child as purpose-built toys. Toys that are well-designed can aid the development of
hand-eye coordination, communication and language skills, agility and balance, and stimulate creativity
and imagination (Community Practitioner, 2000).
Children's play opportunities in early and later childhood can contribute to their overall development and
life chances. Pretty and others (2009) suggest that children who are active as toddlers and grow up
enjoying physically active play, especially in natural environments, may be setting off on a life path to
better health and a longer life than these who are sedentary from early childhood. Play involving arts,
craft and design gives children the opportunity to develop the fine motor skills of hand and finger
control, required for hand-writing (Lindon 2007).
Section 3: Play and social development
‘Time spent playing is the natural arena for forming friendships, finding soul-mates and negotiating
relationships’ (Casey 2010 pxi).
Parents directly affect the behaviour of their young children when they engage the children in play.
When playing with parents, infants’ and toddlers’ behaviour is more complex, more conventional, of
longer duration, and more symbolic than when playing with peers, siblings, or alone. When parents play
with infants and young children, the complexity of children’s behaviour increases substantially both in
the duration of the social interactions and in the developmental level of children’s social behaviour
(Power, 2000). Researchers at Germany’s University of Regensburg conducted a longitudinal study of
fathers’ specific contribution to their children’s attachment at ages 6, 10, and 16 years (Grossmann
2002). In toddlerhood, the more active fathers’ involvement in their children’s play, the greater was the
child’s attachment at age 10 to their parents. The results confirm that fathers’ play sensitivity is a good
predictor of the child’s long-term attachment. In addition, fathers are more likely than mothers to initiate
physically active play with their children (Grossmann and others, 2002) and it is suggested that fatherchild rough-and-tumble play fosters the development of the competition skills in children without using
aggression (Paquette, et al 2003). Parent-child play is also associated with children’s social
competence. In one study, time spent in parent-child play was followed by improvement in conduct
problems among 4-year-olds (Gardner & others. 2003). In another, it was observed that when parentchild interaction is mutually responsive during both pretence and physical play, it is associated with
children's social competence (Lindsey & Mize. 2000).
The extent to which children feel part of a group or part of their local community, is influenced by their
opportunities to play with other children. When children play they use their own language, rules and
values and being part of group play helps them develop their own identities (Casey 2010). Children who
are able to play freely with their peers develop skills for seeing things through another person's point-ofview, for co-operating, helping, sharing, and solving problems (Open University). Traumatised children
who lose their ability for creative play do not have full access to their problem-solving capabilities, which
can make social situations difficult for them (Lovett 2009). Fantasy play allows children to work through
conflict and painful feelings. In play children learn how and when to express or control their emotions,
for example when play fighting, children require a good deal of self-control and restraint, serving as
practice for exercising restraint in more serious contexts (Power, 2000; Galyer & Evans, 2001).
www.btha.co.uk
The act of playing can overcome cultural and other boundaries and help children to understand others
who they might consider to be different from themselves (Lester and Russell 2008). Ensuring that
disabled children have access to and are supported in using play spaces is important for them and for
their families. Children playing together, with their parents meeting and talking to other parents, helps
to foster community relations and friendships. It can reduce the isolation many disabled children and
their families experience (Dunn 2004).
Different types of play support different types of relationship development. For example pretend play,
role play and rough and tumble play allow children to form ‘highly sophisticated attachment systems’ at
an age when friendships are becoming increasingly important (Lester and Russell 2008, p21). Role
play, construction and ‘little world play’ (e.g. farmyard figures) can contribute towards increasing
imagination and also understanding of the self and the world – children can act out situations to help
make sense of them. As children get older (aged 2-4 onwards) role play and team games increase
cooperation and communication skills and help develop a sense of self and a sense of belonging.
Interacting with children through play helps build and maintain relationships between adults and
children (Ginsburg 2007) and active involvement of parents in their children’s play might be one
example of a 'positive parenting skill' which could be critical in the early development of children's
positive behaviours (Gardner and Ward 2000). Play also offers an ideal opportunity for parents to
engage fully with their children, but despite the benefits derived from play for both children and parents,
time for free play has been markedly reduced for some children (Ginsburg, 2007).
Section 4: Play and emotional development
Through play children express and work out emotional aspects of everyday experiences, exploring their
feelings and finding ways of expressing themselves (Open University).
The complex nature of play makes it central to children's developing resilience as they grow up. Lindon
defines resilience as 'an outlook for children and young people characterised by the willingness to
confront challenges, with a sense of confidence that it is possible to deal with setbacks.’ (Lindon 2007,
p7). The creativity required and developed in play, the use of imagination and finding one’s own
solutions to problems, both real and imagined, all help children to develop ways of reacting to a wide
range of situations (Lester and Russell 2008).
Children’s ability to cope with difficult situations and to recover from, or adapt to, adversity whilst
playing, can help them to develop strategies for reacting to real situations (Lester and Russell 2008).
Empathy and imaginary play allow children to learn about the feelings of others and imagine
themselves in different situations. Boys with imaginary friends have been shown to have lower levels of
aggression, feel happier, have more positive attitudes, and experience less fear and anxiety during later
play situations and girls have been shown to be less likely to be angry, fearful and sad in their play
(cited in Jenkinson, p78).
Section 5: Play and mental health
Playful children are happier, better adjusted, more co-operative, and more popular with their peers than
those who play less.
As Singer (1994) states: ‘Children play longer when a wide variety of toys is available. Playful children
are more physically active, creative, humorous, imaginative, emotionally expressive, curious and
communicative’.
Play in early childhood allows children to give voice to their experiences and to have a safe place to
express confusing and painful feelings, and to find ways of overcoming emotional traumas (Hirschland
www.btha.co.uk
2009). Martin Seligman, past president of the American Psychological Association and author of
Authentic Happiness, says that the three pillars of mental health are love, work, and play.
Evidence shows this may be enhanced when children play in natural environments (Croucher 2008).
Contact with nature appears to have a positive effect on recovery from stress and attention fatigue and
on mood, concentration, self-discipline and physiological stress (HC Netherlands 2004). Some
preliminary research has also shown that woodland can provide a sanctuary for both rural and urban
children and reduce self-reported stress. Spending time in the natural environment is important in
creating a sense of belonging and identity, which in turn improves mental health (Bird 2007).
Prescriptions for drugs to control Attention Deficit Disorder Syndrome (ADHD) in the UK have increased
greatly in recent years, by perhaps as much as eightfold according to some sources (Hansard 207,
cited in Conservative Party 2008). Kuo and Taylor (2004) found that children who were identified with
ADHD showed signs of reduced symptoms after spending time in green spaces, specifically access to
natural settings for after school and weekend activities may be effective in reducing ADHD. Indeed
Taylor et al (2001) found whilst studying children with ADHD, the greener a child’s play area, the less
severe were the attention deficit symptoms.
Section 6: Play and physical development
‘Opportunities for spontaneous play may be the only requirement that young children need to increase
their physical activity.’ Dietz (2001).
Physical activity in childhood is important for many reasons and a variety of sources indicate a direct
relationship between physical activity and children’s health (Hope 2007). In early childhood physical
exercise helps build strong bones, muscle strength and lung capacity (Lindon 2007). It may also
increase cognitive function, improve academic achievement and accelerate neuro-cognitive processing.
In addition it appears that active children are also less likely to smoke, to abuse alcohol or take illegal
drugs as they grow up (BHF 2009). It also seems that exercise breeds exercise and children in the East
of England who cycle to school have been found to be much more active at other times and are
aerobically fitter. There is also a suggestion that across England, children in rural areas may be more
active than other children (Pretty 2009).
A Community Practitioner article from 2000 explains how playing with toys is pivotal to a child’s physical
development and that toys that children enjoy playing with at different ages can assist in specific areas
of physical development. For example, between three to six months a baby will start to reach, grasp
and explore objects and handling suitable toys will help hand-eye coordination and fine motor control.
From the age of six to eight months, a baby will be increasingly on the move and developing manual
dexterity so toys that roll or move easily will encourage a baby to reach out and go after them helping to
develop gross motor skills. During the second year playing with toys that can be pushed or pulled helps
walking and balance. Opportunities to use and improve manipulative skills are important at this age so
playing with toys that allow fingers and hands to twist, screw, turn and open is beneficial. By the age of
two, a child will have much more finely controlled hand movements and will, for example, enjoy building
and constructing with toys and playing with simple jigsaws.
Several studies have shown that play is good for developing motor function and most infants and
toddlers acquire fundamental movement skills through unstructured physical activity and play. Children
who lack proficient motor skills often choose not to participate in physical activities as they get older and
as games become more competitive (in Low Deiner and Qiu 2007: quoting Graham 2005). Better motor
function has also been found to lead to fewer accidents (HC Netherlands 2004).
Fun and enjoyment are the greatest motivators for physical activity and, whilst children see health
reasons as important, they are more attracted by ‘unhealthy’ activities if they are more fun than
‘healthier’ activities (Hemmings 2007). Young children are innately active, but this natural tendency is
easily overridden by external constraints, including adult supervision (Jebb 2007).
www.btha.co.uk
Parents also have a strong influence on their children’s activity levels. If parents understand the
importance of physical activity to their children's health and are involved with their children in some
physical activity, this not only encourages their children to be more active but can also enhance parentchild communication and social interactions among family members (Thompson et al, 2010).
Active play is the most common type of physical activity children take part in outside school and outdoor
and unstructured play may be one of the best forms of physical activity for children (BHF 2009; Mackett
and Paskins 2008).
Allowing toddlers the opportunity for active play and encouraging walking activity as part of the daily
routine are important in preventing obesity. Children who sleep fewer hours a day are more at risk of
obesity and active children tend to sleep longer (Milano 2007: quoting Taheri 2006). However, research
into effective interventions for obesity is complex and although individually each factor may make only a
small contribution to weight gain, the potential synergies may underestimate the true effect. For
example physical activity may play a greater role in weight control than indicated by its contribution to
energy expenditure (Jebb 2007, p11).
Children’s activity levels are related to gender, family patterns and outdoor play. Boys are more active
than girls; children whose parents participate in physical activity with them are more active and children
who spend more time in outdoor play spaces are more active (BHF 2009; Biddle et al, 2007).
There is also evidence that older children and teenagers view the outdoors as the most important
environment for physically active play (Open Space, 2006), and that children who go out without adult
supervision are likely to be more physically active than those who are with adults (Mackett 2007).
Children get much of their physical exercise at school and play times can be important for this,
especially during the longer breaks (Fairclough 2008). Although children are more active during longer
breaks it has been found that the longer they played the less active they became. Children were more
active when playing ballgames, had free access to non-fixed equipment and where there were suitable
markings on the ground. When teachers were managing or observing in the playground children's
activity was reduced (Parrish 2009).
Section 7: Play and cognitive development
'Play is our need to adapt the world to ourselves and create new learning experiences.’ (Elkind 2007,
p3).
Piaget and Vygotsky, two of the most influential 20th century theorists of cognitive development, both
emphasised the essential role of play in children’s development. According to Piaget play provides
children with extensive opportunities to interact with materials in the environment and construct their
own knowledge of the world, making play one of the most important elements of cognitive development
(Zigler 2009). Play influences neurological development and determines how intricate neural circuits are
wired. Amongst other research, positron-emission tomography scans of Romanian orphans with play
deprivation indicate that play is as essential to human development as other basic needs (Begley,
1997).
Lester and Russell argue that the main contribution of play to learning is to help children understand the
links between motivation, emotion and reward, allowing them to coordinate their feelings, thoughts and
behaviour and experience the feeling of learning (Lester and Russell 2008). Others claim that, through
playing, children learn vocabulary, concepts, problem solving, self-confidence, motivation, and an
awareness of the needs of others (Zigler 2009). Constructive and imaginative play has been identified
as most important for cognitive development (HC Netherlands 2004).
www.btha.co.uk
In early childhood it is important to support and encourage self-directed play activities even if these
appear meaningless to adults. They are not random and are linked to the child's mental ability. Allowing
a child time and freedom to complete these activities to their own satisfaction supports the child's ability
to concentrate (Elkind 2007). Elardo and others (1975) showed that the availability of toys in infancy
was related to the child’s IQ at 3 years of age. Children with access to a variety of toys are found to
reach higher levels of intellectual achievement, regardless of the children’s sex, race, or social class.
Play reduces the tension that often comes with having to achieve or needing to learn and in play adults
do not interfere and children relax. In school settings play helps children adjust to new surroundings as
well as giving them a basis for extending their learning (Ginsburg 2007).
Marjanovic -Umek & Lesnik-Musek (2001) compared three age groups of children in preschool settings
to investigate the links between symbolic play and cognitive and language development. They found
that the level and complexity of children’s symbolic play depended on both play materials and the play
context.
Smilansky (1968) proposes a thesis that social-fantasy activities influence the development of the
child’s cognitive and social skills. Role enactment, the highest form of symbolic play, encompasses two
types of cognitive operation which are necessary for conservation, namely reversibility and decentration
(Rubin, 1980). Reversibility in this context means the child’s awareness that he or she can come back
from the role into reality at any time. Decentration is about the child’s understanding that the child in the
play is still really her/him and, at the same time, the person whose role s/he is playing.
Smilansky (1968) noted a progressive development in the use of toys and objects. The first stage
comprises simple toy manipulation and is followed by the stage of imitating the activities of adults, when
the child uses miniature replicas of objects in the same way that adults do. It is not until the next, third,
stage that toys become instruments for enacting certain roles (there remains a clear connection
between the imitative use of the toy and role enactment); at the fourth stage, use of toys is
complemented by speech and gestures (this is not play with realistic toys, but with mainly unstructured
materials). The last, fifth, stage focuses on speech and, as a rule, the child uses neither toys nor
gestures.
Symbolic play is also important for language comprehension. As Pellegrini and Galda (1982) state, the
symbolic elements of fantasy play, like role and object transformations, enable the child to use
lexicographic meanings and explicit speech.
A Community Practitioner article (2000) highlights that by 15 to 18 months symbolic or imaginative play
is beginning and therefore it is important to encourage imitative play through toys such as tea sets and
pretend cooking utensils.
The Marjanovic -Umek & Lesnik-Musek (2001) study confirmed the findings of several other studies
(Elder & Pederson, 1978; Giddings cited in McLoyd, 1986) which show that younger children need
structured play materials for symbolic play since unstructured materials offer them more limited
opportunities to represent their ideas in play. Unstructured play materials can, however, provide more
flexible play contexts for preschool children who are more skilled at representing ideas in play. They go
on to say that the complexity of children’s symbolic play depends on the context of play or the play
situation and that, irrespective of their age, children played in different ways in different play situations.
Different play situations encourage and emphasise different elements of symbolic play and thus support
different areas of children’s development to varying extents. Marjanovic -Umek & Lesnik-Musek (2001)
conclude by suggesting that preschool teachers should know which types of play materials (structured,
unstructured or combinations of both) are most appropriate for children at different ages and they
should know how to arrange playrooms in order to encourage developmentally appropriate symbolic
play. Preschool teachers should also be aware that different contexts of play are needed to encourage
the development of children’s representation, social interaction and communication skills.
Section 8: Play and the community
www.btha.co.uk
For many years, research findings have demonstrated the value and importance of community play to
children’s well-being.
This was recognised in the 1960s when Mead (cited in Blakely: 1994) pointed out that neighbourhoods
provide vital opportunities for children to explore their environments without adult direction and learn life
lessons about the ‘familiar’ and the ‘strange’. Mathews (2003, cited in Spilsbury: 2005) who investigated
public space in relation to 9- to 16-year-old children suggested that public space acts as a ‘liminal’ or in
between setting, in the right of passage from childhood to adulthood.
It is now widely believed that playing outdoors is important for children to maintain a sense of
community. For adults too, children’s play can help to build good social networks, as it provides them
with opportunities to interact with one another at places children play. Research from Switzerland show
a positive correlation between outdoor play and good social networks (cited in Conservative Party:
2008). Similarly, Worpole and Knox (2007) found that public space is highly valued for socialising
opportunities and developing community ties. For children specifically, public space allows them to build
friendships and learn rules of social life. Public space is also cited as an important play arena, whether
on the streets or in more secluded areas.
Prezza and Pacilli (2007, cited in Lester and Russell: 2008) state that ‘autonomy and play in public
areas during childhood influences more intense neighbourhood relations, a strong sense of community
and less fear of crime and, in turn, these later variables consequently reduce feelings of loneliness
during adolescence’.
In the report No Ball Games Here, the charity Living Streets provides evidence that the decline in use of
the street and public space has led to poor neighbourhood relations. Their 2009 study found that 72 per
cent of respondents aged 65 and over stated that, when they had a young family, they knew at least
five of their neighbours well enough to engage in conversation. Of today’s parents, more than a quarter
knew less than two of their neighbours.
Children’s presence in public space seems to have declined dramatically in recent decades. Spilsbury
(2005) argues that public space in the USA has come to be recognised as adult space, an argument
mirrored in the UK. Children are unwelcome in the community because of the perceived dangers the
world presents to them. According to Spilsbury, high profile cases about child abduction or ‘out of
control’ young people have led to ‘moral panic’, responded to by keeping children away from the public
realm. Spilsbury blames the media’s sensationalism of rare murder and abduction cases, which distract
attention away from realistic threats, such as poverty.
By comparing the views of parents today with previous generations, the charity Living Streets
documented changes in the community and the impact of this on children’s presence in the local area
(Living Streets: 2009). Supporting the findings of previous research (Prezza et al: 2007, cited in Lester
and Russell: 2008; Hillman et al: 1990), Living Streets’ study suggests that street play has decreased
dramatically over time, with only 12 per cent of the 65 and older group claiming that they never played
out as children, and almost half of today’s children saying they never play out. Playday 2007 research
also documented a decline in street play showing that, while 71 per cent of adult’s reported playing in
the streets or areas near to their home everyday when they were children, only 21 per cent of children
now claim to do so. Living Streets report that parents are reluctant to allow their children out due to the
perceived dangers. According to the 2006 Children’s Society research, 43 per cent of adults felt that
children should not be allowed out unsupervised under the age of 14 and 22 per cent thought children
should not venture out alone until they are 16 (cited in Living Streets: 2009).
Brown et al (2008) identified clear gender differences in children’s relationship to their local
environments. Their research, using a multi-method approach to examine mobility patterns of children
in Hertfordshire and Lewisham, highlights how boys tended to be allowed out more than their female
counterparts. Parents were more inclined to allow their daughters out if they were with peers or if they
were going out for more focused activities (for example, to play games rather than simply ‘go for a
www.btha.co.uk
walk’). While boys played out most days, the results show that it was rare for girls to do so. It was even
rarer for girls to play outside beyond sight of their home.
Not only this, but boys tended to travel on foot more than girls, who were more likely to use public
transport or travel by car. In fact, girls were found to travel further distances than boys in order to see
friends and visit shops. The findings suggest that girls prioritise their friendships, while boys have a
more direct relationship with the physical environment. Shopping centres offer girls a place to meet and
socialise, while maintaining a level of freedom. Brown et al argue that, although girls are less present in
the local community, they do utilise other space in ways that suits them (Brown et al: 2008).
Brown et al also found that friendship and children’s mobility in the area were strongly associated; the
more friends that children had, the more independence they acquired. The fact that boys spent more
time in the local community is largely because they had more friends and more friends who lived close
to them, while girls’ friendship networks were more widely spread.
Brown et al (2008) point out the influence of parental social interaction on children’s use of public
space. They note that the boundaries parents set for their children is to some extent dependent on the
behaviour of other parents and this can sometimes lead to gender differences. For example, if one or
two parents are particularly protective of their daughters then others seem to follow. Mothers were more
inclined to allow their children out to play if they were taking part in a specific activity or game, rather
than simply ‘hanging around’. With a strong connection to football for many boys, this meant that boys
were more frequently out playing in the local community.
Concerns about children in public space have seemingly contributed to the decline of community play in
the USA as well as in the UK. An investigation into young people’s different behaviours and sense of
community notes that, due to their restricted independent mobility within the local neighbourhood,
children had few opportunities to build friendship networks.
Parents appear to adopt a number of strategies to protect their children from the perceived danger of
violence in the neighbourhood; this includes enforcing curfews, accompanying children around the
neighbourhood or restricting their free play and mobility in the local area. A study from the USA shows
that of 482 parents from disadvantaged communities, nearly half reported that they kept their children in
as much as possible (Fursternberg et al 1999 cited in Spilsburg: 2005). Similarly, Outley and Floyd
(cited in Spilsburg: 2005) note that 10 and 11 year olds living in a socially isolated area in Houston, US
have restrictions imposed on them and found that this constrained children’s participation and
exploration of the local play and leisure facilities.
A study by Mathews (2003, cited in Morrow 2006) with children aged 10-14 in Northamptonshire
uncovered that girls also tend to be more afraid of public space than boys. When boys did express fears
over their well-being they tended to identify traffic as their primary concern; while girls highlighted their
fear of strangers, youth gangs or being attacked. Petrie (2000 cited in Morrow: 2006) points out how
over-protective attitudes towards females mean that these children lack secure friendship circles
preventing them from using the public realm. This is not to say that boys do not feel vulnerable in their
neighbourhoods. However, gender seems to be only one factor that affects children’s experiences in
public space.
In January 2008, the Conservative Party published More Ball Games, part of its Childhood Review,
which argued that changes in the outside world have driven children away from public space and
impacts their health and well-being (Conservative Party: 2008). The report suggests that parents should
not be blamed for this and that parents are, in fact, spending more time with their children than ever
before. According to statistics from Egerton and Gershuny’s time use survey (2004 cited in
Conservative Party: 2008), parents were spending an average of 99 minutes per day with their children
compared with just 25 minutes in the mid 1970’s.
www.btha.co.uk
Iwrin et al (2007) provide further evidence of distrust amongst members of the community. They found
that the majority of parents characterised their neighbourhood as unsafe and felt that their local
neighbours could not be trusted to look after their children. This lack of trust drove children away from
the community spaces because adults chose indoor activities for their children rather than outdoor play.
These views were mirrored in the children’s perspectives, many of them expressing their anxiety about
their safety in the local neighbourhood, particularly in relation to ‘stranger danger’, and this prevented
them from playing outside.
Elsley (2004) contends that three issues must be addressed in order to increase the contribution of
young people in public space. Firstly, methods must be used to ensure children’s active participation in
everyday practice (including participatory activities by seeking and providing information to engage in
formal structures or organisations); this should be monitored by national agencies as an indication of
good community participation. Secondly, more consideration should be put into planning and
development policy aimed at improving the public realm for young people, by noting how children wish
to use public space. This should take into consideration children’s age related needs and the diversity
of children’s experiences. Finally, policy makers should ensure that public policy is influenced by
children’s perceptions, so it accurately represents children’s views, rather than making assumptions
about these.
Beunderman (2010) illustrates the importance of staffed play provision as offering safe opportunities for
free play. While public space can offer a hostile environment for children, staffed provision allows
children to ‘roam free’ and socialise with peers without the overriding concerns of unsupervised play.
Beunderman is careful not be belittle the importance of unsupervised play within the community, but
suggests that staffed provision can provide a unique and important contribution to local play
opportunities. It is important not to confuse staffed play provision with structured activities, as only
within the former do children have the opportunity to direct their own play and create their own
boundaries. Staffed play provision can help nurture adult-child relationships and establish a sense of
trust that is often absent in the current social context.
Children in the study talked of the life skills that they had acquired through play, such as sharing,
looking out for one another and asking for help. It is argued that such skills can provide them with a
more positive outlook on the neighbourhood through gaining trust, feeling welcome and knowing others
in the community. It seems that having a place to go, where children are listened to and respected gives
them a positive perception of their local area. Through their engagement in the local environment and
with others in the community, children not only had better relations with adults, but had more respect for
the public arena allowing them to make a positive contribution to their local neighbourhood
(Beunderman: 2010).
In Beunderman’s study parents, like children and playworkers, were able to articulate their experiences
of how play provision had benefited them and transformed the local community. Through this, parents
had created social bonds with their neighbours and established support networks. This was particularly
valuable for parents living in deprived areas were there may be more feelings of isolation. In fact, some
parents noted that good quality play provision was an important factor in deciding which community
they chose to live in. Parents also claimed that the presence of staffed play provision had contributed to
a greater sense of community by uniting different social groups and bringing neighbours together and it
also offered a vital setting for community involvement.
Reiterating Moore’s points (1986), the Demos publication, Seen and Heard, argues that children and
young people must be valued in public space and that children must be allowed to have safe, informal
areas where they can hang out without adult supervision, DEMOS promote ‘the importance of the
everyday public realm as a legitimate site for children and young people’s informal recreation, and a
dimension of wellbeing’ (Beunderman et al 2007: 113 ). This should stretch across all aspects of public
space, beyond playgrounds and include all community members, regardless of age. They advocate
traffic calming measures to help open up public space to children.
www.btha.co.uk
Section 9: Play and the environment
Free play and exposure to nature are increasingly recognised as essential to healthy child development
(Moore and Cosco 2009).
Several studies have found that playing in natural environments has a positive impact on children's
social play, their sense of well-being, their concentration and motor ability, and that children have a
particular attraction to natural environments (Bird 2007; Lester and Russell 2008). Evidence suggests
that the local environment is a key factor in their well-being; and the poorest and most vulnerable
children suffer most from environmental degradation (SDC 2007).
A growing body of research indicates a direct connection between daily exposure to natural outdoor
environments and individual health, including increased attention, improved fitness and motor
functioning and lower sickness rates. Pretty (2009) cites a number of researchers who have
demonstrated that outdoor play, especially in more natural environments, gives children a sense of
freedom, healthier personal development, increased cognitive functioning, emotional resilience, and
opportunities for self discovery.
Children who play outside more, learn to navigate their immediate environs and build their self
confidence (Open University). Children who do not play outside can have fewer social networks, can be
less confident and be less involved in their local community (Gleave 2010). Contact with nature may
also have a significant and positive effect on an individual’s attention levels and in children with ADHD,
playing in a natural environment has been found to reduce their symptoms (Bird 2007). When young
children play freely in natural environments they are more likely to enjoy nature as they grow up (Pretty
2009; HC Netherlands 2004). Having interesting and engaging environments for play can also reduce
aggressive behaviour and conflict in schools. Destructive behaviour is more likely to occur in large,
boring, open play areas, where space is not broken up by trees, bushes or other natural boundaries. In
this type of bland environment it can be very difficult for small peer groups to get away from each other
(Bird 2007).
Play provision needs to offer opportunities for co-operative play, modelling behaviour, conflict resolution
and turn-taking as well as more obvious motor skills. Playground features should allow children to
develop their own ideas and activities at their own pace (Gummer 2010). Modifying the play features in
a playground has been shown to increase physically active play (Hughes 2007). To be active children
need sufficient space, and age appropriate equipment and features to allow them to move around, fast
and slowly, change direction and manipulate their environment (Thigpen 2007).
Not only is play important for children’s well-being and healthy development but providing for play can
make an important contribution to community well-being. Mainwaring and Taylor (date unknown)
demonstrate how new play projects can make a significant difference to social interaction and a sense
of community ownership in deprived areas (Barraclough 2004).
Section 10: A reduction in time to play
It is commonly believed that play is a vital part of children’s development and is fundamental for every
child (Ginsburg 2006).
Several commentators claim there is substantial evidence to suggest that play is key to physical, mental
and social well-being. It has been linked to overcoming fears in everyday situations, decision making,
discovering interests, brain development and enhancing academic learning. Not least, many authors
contend play is a right for all children and offers them enjoyable experiences (Lester and Russell 2008;
Jenkinson 2001).
Play theorists widely argue that play is associated with benefits such as acquiring life skills and
improving children’s emotional and academic development (Ginsburg 2006). It is also associated with a
www.btha.co.uk
number of health benefits, including essential organ growth and muscle building. Socially, play allows
children to explore their local neighbourhood, learn the rules of everyday life and discover the different
textures and elements in the world (Clements 2004). Despite these benefits, there is evidence to
suggest less of children’s time is being devoted to play, in favour of structured or educational activities
(Hofferth and Sandberg 2000; Doherty and Clarkson cited in Lester and Russell 2008). American writer
David Elkind claims the role of play in physical and psychological well-being has been ‘overlooked’ in
many areas. He states:
‘School administrators and teachers – often backed by goal-orientated politicians and parents –
broadcast the not-so-suitable message that these days play seems superfluous, that at bottom play is
for slackers, that if kids must play, they should at least learn something while they are doing it.’ (Elkind
2008, 1)
He claims that because of this, play has become an ‘unaffordable luxury’ in modern society, pushed
aside to make way for organised activities which are seen as more educational, or television and
gaming technology that has taken over from more traditional forms of play. He points to research from
the US in 2007 suggesting that young children of pre-school age are watching around two hours of
television a day (Elkind 2008).
Although evidence suggests that extra-curricular activities can enhance academic achievement, play
experts have expressed concerns that children’s free time has become associated only with learning,
rather than enjoyment of play itself. This is by no means a new concept, as Elkind quoted in the 1980s:
‘Our traditional conception of play was that of free, spontaneous, and self-initiated activity that reflected
the abundant energy of healthy child development. Today, however, that conception of play has been
relegated to the early childhood years. For school aged children, play is now identified with learning and
with the preparation for adult life.’ (Elkind cited in Lego Learning Institute 2002)
Oksnes (2008) reflects on her own research in Norway, analysing children’s perceptions of play in
relation to a ‘spare time programme’, which provides provision for children before and after school. She
conducted focus groups with children aged seven and eight years old and observed children’s play in
the programme over a three-week period. From the data collected, it became clear that the children’s
definition of play and leisure time was relatively ambiguous, and there was ultimately no agreement
over what was meant by it. There was a general consensus that leisure time is associated with playing,
freedom and the ability to do as they wish under their own direction, rather than an activity that is
compulsory or under adult control. For this reason (and despite children’s high regard for the
programme), the children viewed neither school time nor the spare time programme as ‘leisure time’.
Rather, the programme provided a safe alternative for children to go to while their parents worked fulltime. This evidence suggests that although children can enjoy organised activities, children do not
necessarily view it as ‘leisure time’ or ‘free time’. This evidence suggests that making time for free,
unstructured play is important, even if children have access to more formal recreational activities.
More recently, Oksnes draws on theoretical work to discuss the role of play in children’s lives. Play and
leisure time have been described as ‘instrumentalised’ (Kleiber cited in Oksnes 2008) in the sense that
it is simply viewed as a means of learning, rather than something to be enjoyed. This, it is argued,
caused the development of ‘good’ or ‘correct’ forms of play that contribute towards children’s academia
or prepares them with life skills, rather than merely playing for enjoyment’s sake. Mayall uses the term
the ‘scholarisation of childhood’ to describe the idea that academic learning has crossed into all aspects
of children’s lives (Mayall 2000).
Elsewhere, Thomas and Hocking argue that the replacement of self-directed play with organised leisure
activities undermines the very nature of ‘play’ because it reduces the control children exercise over their
free time (cited in Lester and Russell 2008). This is backed by research from Italy which shows that the
essence of ‘play’ is the ability to ‘lose’ sense of time through one’s own experience of the world as a
place of ‘mystery, risk and adventure’ (Tonucci in Lester and Russell 2008). Structured activity, Tonucci
argues, reduces the element of independence to make way for more adult control.
www.btha.co.uk
Zeiher believes that while selected places, designed for play, can be attractive to children and important
for their social life, it also limits children’s free time to a certain range of activities, often doing the same
thing from day to day. For this reason ‘the children see no necessity to overcome these restrictions by
exploring new activities or going elsewhere to pursue them’ (Zeiher 2003). However, Zeiher contends
that children do exercise control over their free time through choosing whether to visit the play areas.
Evidence was found of ‘temporal freedom’, as children actually chose when to visit the play sites rather
than adhered to the restrictions of organised activities.
Research carried out in 2004 by Armitage (cited in Lester and Russell 2008), found that children value
time spent away from adults and actively seek public areas that can offer this. However, a number of
commentators believe that children are spending less of their time in public spaces away from adults
(Veitch and others 2007, Mayall 2000a). A review of oral history and statistical evidence research in
Amsterdam suggests that outdoor play has largely been replaced with supervised forms of play which,
Karsten argues, has transformed the very meaning of childhood. He found the majority of children
studied could be described as ‘backseat children’, in the sense that they are escorted to and from
places by their parents and play mostly consists of adult-organised activities. Armitage has argued that
more resources should be allocated to children’s free play, but that they are instead channelled towards
more supervised forms of activities.
Over-scheduling children’s time could have implications for their health. Research from the late 1990s
indicates that hectic schedules disrupt sleeping patterns (Carlskadon in Melman and others 2007) and
that pressures of homework and household chores have led to increased stress levels in adolescents
(Shaw and others in Melman and others 2007). Rosenfeld used the term ‘hyper-parenting’ to describe
an apparent phenomenon whereby parents aim for perfection from their children, encouraging extracurricular activities at the expense of the imagination and creativity that is brought about by free-play
(Rosenfeld and Wise 2001).
Section 11: Play and schools
Pellegrini (2008) argues that break time has come under heavy fire in both the UK and US. Politically,
he argues, playtime is viewed as a waste of time that could be spent on something more constructive.
Over recent years, playtime in schools has been reduced as a way of finding increasing time for
academic learning (Pellegrini and Holmes in Singer and others 2006). In fact, according to Pellegrini
and Holmes, eliminating breaks is counter-productive as this may be the only opportunity children have
to let off steam and socialise with their peers. Therefore, break times at school are both important and
educational. In fact Bjork and Pellegrini have argued that ‘playful’ breaks from learning, that is,
unstructured breaks, actually improve rather than hinder cognitive performance (Pellegrini 2008).
Reducing playtime at school, some writers have argued, can have implications for children’s health.
According to research carried out in northwest England, children accomplish around a third of their
recommended daily amount of physical activity during school break times. The researchers conclude:
‘These data indicate that recess provided a salient opportunity for children to take part in physical
activity of different intensities and provide them with a context to achieve minimum daily physical activity
guidelines.’ (Ridgers and others 2005). The empirical evidence, presented by Pellegrini and others,
showing the positive implications of break times, not only for academic achievement but also in terms of
social skills and cognitive development, provides a strong argument that break times should be an
important aspect of the school day, and the author recommends that playtime at schools should be
lengthened. Physical education classes, he argues, would not provide the same benefits, as the
children are under instruction without the kind of peer interaction and self-direction that can only be
achieved through play (Pellegrini 2008).
Mackett suggests that school break times are the primary opportunity for exercise for children and so
physical activity will decrease if school break times are reduced. He argues that the replacement of
www.btha.co.uk
unstructured play with structured activities outside of school hours, will not balance this, as children are
frequently driven to and from these activities meaning that less physical activity is carried out (cited in
Blatchford and Baines 2006).
Blatchford et al (2002) find that playground games are particularly important at the start of the school
year and that shared knowledge of a game can be used by children unfamiliar to each other as the
basis for interactions. Games can therefore ‘scaffold’ or support social relationships. Blatchford and
Baines (2010) also describe that games can consolidate friendship groups after initial friendship
formation and that the games children play contribute towards the identity of the friendship group.
In the 1990s, Blatchford found that despite lengthening the school day, break time, including lunchtime,
had shortened in length. Blatchford found that children valued break times during school, especially
lunchtime when the break was longer. It provided them with an opportunity for freedom from the rules
and regulations of the rest of the school day. He agreed with the previous researchers, that break times
during school are often regarded as problematic, and playtime had been cut down to make more time
for the National Curriculum. This means the positive experience that most of the children had during
breaks have been often overlooked. He suggested that changing the arrangements of break time,
including altering the length of the breaks, should take children’s high regard for this time into account.
Following up their earlier research, Blatchford and Baines (2006) conducted a large scale UK study
focusing on break times in schools. The research builds on Blatchford’s previous survey and found that,
since the original research, break times had decreased and in many cases afternoon breaks had been
completely eradicated. This change was most likely because of demands to meet targets through the
National Curriculum, and also as a proposed solution to tackle ‘behavioural’ problems.
Blatchford and Baines extended the 2006 study to include ‘extended school’ services, and children’s
views on break times based on their own accounts. Children’s free time at school decreased as children
get older, as total break times reduced from 91 minutes per day for ages 4–7, to 77 minutes per day for
ages 7–11, to 69 minutes per day for ages 11–16. The proportion of children aged 4–7 who received an
overall break of 65 minutes and over, decreased from 60 per cent to 44 per cent over the previous 15
years; for children aged 7–11 this fell from 31 to 12 per cent; and for children aged 11–16 the figures
show a decrease from 23 per cent to only 5 per cent.
Section 12: Play and intergenerational relationships
Davis et al (2002) looking at intergenerational aspects of play found that shared play experiences are a
good way to build mutually beneficial relationships among younger and older generations, and these
interactions contribute to cognitive growth, improved social skills, physical development and emotional
well-being.
Older adults and children involved in intergenerational programs can thrive on the benefits of crossgenerational exchanges. Play when combined with older adults in an intergenerational setting opens a
new gateway to intergenerational programming (Davis et al, 2002). Indeed multi-age enriched play
settings have been shown to provide more opportunities for interactions around literacy content
(Christie & Stone, 1998) and combining a literacy-rich play context with adult mediation improves
children’s ability to read environmental print (Neuman & Roskos, 1992; 1993).
Children who have adults involved in their play are more creative (BTHA, 2002) and the pairing of
younger and older generations in play situations that are active and interactive is likely to result in
positive outcomes across all domains of children’s development (Davis et al, 2002). It is not only the
children that benefit though: older adults can learn about the children of today and even with the advent
of television and computers, some things do not change.
Davis et al (2002) describe four good intergenerational toys that are traditional (and not electronic) that
engage younger and older generations in satisfying play interactions. The authors found that playing
www.btha.co.uk
with these standard toys breaks stereotyped feelings (from both the young and old) that the other is
very different to them. Guddemi et al (cited in Davis et al 2002) state that children begin to develop a
positive attitude toward the elderly and the aging process when they interact side-by-side.
www.btha.co.uk
References
Axford, N (2008) Exploring concepts of child well-being: Implications for children's services.
Bristol: Policy Press.
Barraclough et al (2004) Delivering play spaces in NDC areas. Sheffield: Centre for Regional
Economic and Social Research, Sheffield Hallam University
Begley, S. (1997) How to build a baby’s brain, Newsweek – Special Edition: Your Child. 22
March
Beunderman, J (2010) People make play: the impact of staffed play provision on children,
families and communities. London: Play England.
Beunderman, J (2010) People Make Play: The impact of staffed play provision on children,
families and communities. London: Play England.
Beunderman, J, Hannon, C and Bradwell, P (2007) Seen and Heard: Reclaiming the public
realm with children and young people. London: Play England.
Bird, W (2007) ‘Nature's way’, Leisure Management, 5, 40-42.
Bird, W (2007) Natural Thinking Sandy: RSPB.
Blakely, K, S (1994) ‘Parents’ Conceptions of Social Danger to Children in the Urban
Environment’ Children’s Environment, 11(1): 16-25.
Blatchford, P (1998) Social Life in School: Pupils’ experience of breaktime and recess from 7
to 16 years. London: The Falmer Press.
Blatchford, P and Baines, E (2006) A follow up national survey of breaktimes in primary and
secondary schools: Reported to Nuffield Foundation. Available online from:
http://www.breaktime.org.uk/NuffieldBreakTimeReport-WEBVersion.pdf
Blatchford, P. and Baines, E. (2010) Peer relations in school - - in Elsevier Handbook of
Educational Pyschology: New Perspectives on Learning and Teaching - K.Littleton, C.Wood
and Kleine Staarman (eds) 2010.
Blatchford, Pellegrini, Baines and Kentaro (2002) Playground Games: their social context in
elementary/junior school - Final report to the Spencer Foundation 2002. (Available here:
http://www.breaktime.org.uk/SpencerFinalReport02.pdf).
Boyd Webb, N (2009) 'Play and expressive therapies with medically challenged children and
adolescents', in Boyd Webb, N (ed) Helping children and adolescents with chronic and serious
medical conditions: a strengths based approach. Chichester: Wiley.
British Heart Foundation (2009) Couch kids: the nation’s future. BHF.
Brown, B, Mackett, R, Gong, Y, Kitazawa, K and Paskins, J (2008) ‘Gender Differences in
Children’s Pathways to Independent Mobility’, Children’s Geographies, 6(4): 385-401.
BTHA (2002): http://www.btha.co.uk/publications/ntc/intergen/html,. 4/19/2002
Casey, T (2010) Inclusive Play: Practical strategies for children from birth to eight. London:
Sage.
Chambers, H et al (2002) Healthy Care: Building an evidence base for promoting the health
and well-being of looked after children and young people. London: NCB.
Christie J, Stone S. (1998) Collaborative literacy activity in print-enriched play centers:
exploring the "zone" in same-age and multi-age groupings. Journal of Literacy Research, 31,
2, 109-131
Clements, R (2004) ‘An investigation of the status of outdoor play’, Contemporary Issues in
Early Childhood, 5, 1, 2004.
Coalter, F and Taylor, J (2001) Realising the potential of cultural services: the case for play.
London: Local Government Association.
Community Practice (2000); 73, 11: 843-844
Conservative Party (2008) More Ball Games: The childhood review. London: Conservative
Party.
Counterpoint Research (2008) Childhood Wellbeing: Qualitative Research Study. London:
Department for Children, Schools and Families.
Croucher, K et al (2008) The links between greenspace and health: a critical literature review.
Stirling: Greenspace.
www.btha.co.uk
Davies, D and Boyd Webb, N (2009) ‘Outpatient counseling for child and youth with life
threatening conditions’, in Boyd Webb, N (ed) op cit.
Davis, L., Larkin, E. & Graves, S (2002), 'Intergenerational learning through play', International
Journal of Early Childhood, 34, 2, 42-49
Dietz, W (2001) ‘The obesity epidemic in young children’, British Medical Journal, 322, 7282,
313-4.
Dunn, K et al (2004) Developing Accessible play space: final research report. London:
Department for Communities and Local Government.
Elardo, R.; Bradley, R.; & Caldwell, B.M. (1975). The relation of infants’ home environments to
mental test performance from 6 to 36 months: A longitudinal analysis. Child Development, 46,
71-76
Elder, J.L., and Pederson, D.R. (1978). Preschool children's use of objects in symbolic Play.
Child Development, 49, 500-504
Elkind, D (2007) The power of play: how spontaneous, imaginative activities lead to happier,
healthier children. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press.
Elkind, D (2008) ‘The Power of play: Learning what comes naturally’, American Journal of
Play, 1, 1, Summer, 1–6.
Elsley, S (2004) ‘Children’s Experience of Public Space’, Children and Society, 18(2): 155164.
Fairclough, S et al (2008) ‘Primary school children's health enhancing physical activity
patterns: the school as a significant environment?’, Education 3-13, 36, 4, 371-81.
Foley, P (2008-1) ‘Introduction', in Collins, J and Foley, P eds (2008) Promoting children's
wellbeing: policy and practice. Bristol: Policy Press.
Foley, P (2008-2) 'Health matters', in Collins, J and Foley, P eds (2008) Promoting children's
wellbeing: policy and practice. Bristol: Policy Press.
Galyer, K. T., & Evans, I. M. (2001). Pretend play and the development of emotion regulation
in preschool children. Early Child Development and Care, 166, 93-108
Gardner, F and Ward, S (2000) ‘Parent child interaction and children's well-being: reducing
conduct problems and promoting conscience development’, in Buchanan, A and Hudson, B
eds Promoting Children's Emotional Well-being. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gardner, F. and others. (2003). The role of mother-child joint play in the early development of
children’s conduct problems: A longitudinal observational study. Social Development, 12, 361378
Ginsburg, K (2007) ‘The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and
maintaining strong parent-child bonds’, Pediatrics, 119,182-91.
Ginsburg, K (2006) The Importance of Play in Promoting Healthy Child Development and
Maintaining Strong Parent–Child Bonds. USA: American Academy of Paediatrics.
Gladwin, M and Collins, J (2008) 'Anxieties and risks' in Collins, J and Foley, P eds (2008)
Promoting children's wellbeing: policy and practice . Bristol: Policy Press.
Gleave, J (2008) Risk and play: a literature review. London: Play England.
Grossman, K. And others (2002) The uniqueness of the child-father attachment relationship:
Fathers’ sensitive and challenging play as a pivotal variable in a 16-year longitudinal study.
Social Development, 11, 301-337
Gummer, A (2010) "The role of modern playgrounds in child development", Ip-Dip, 15 4-26.
Health Council of the Netherlands (2004) Nature and Health: The influence of nature on
social, psychological and physical well-being: Part 1 of a two-part study: review of the current
level of knowledge. http://www.forhealth.fi/pmwiki/docs/dutch-health-council-review.pdf
(Accessed Dec 2010)
Hemmings, P (2007) ‘Renegotiating the primary school: children's emotional geographies of
sport, exercise and active play’, in Children's Geographies, 5, 353-71.
Hillman, M, Adams, J and Whitelegg, J (1990) One False Move: A study of children’s
independent mobility. London: Policy Studies Institute.
Hirschland, D (2009) ‘Addressing social, emotional, and behavioral challenges through play”
in Zero to Three, 30, 1, 12-17.
www.btha.co.uk
Hofferth, SL and Sandberg, JF (2000) ‘Changes in American Children’s Time: 1981–1997.
Available online from: http://ceel.psc.isr.umich.edu/pubs/papers/ceel013–00.pdf
Hope, G et al (2007) ‘Wild woods or urban jungle: playing it safe or freedom to roam’,
Education 3-13, 35, 4, 321-32.
Hubbuck, C (2009) Play for sick children: play specialists in hospitals and beyond. London:
Jessica Kingsley.
Hughes, B (2007) ‘Does adventure playground modification affect the intensity of the play that
takes place there?’, Playrights Magazine, 2.
Irwin, L, G, Johnson, A, Henderson, V, S, Dahinten and Hertzman, C (2007) ‘Examining How
Context Shapes Young Children’s Perceptions of Health’ Child: Care, health and
development, 33(4): 353-359.
Jebb, S et al (2007) The ‘Healthy Living’ Social Marketing Initiative: A review of the evidence.
London: COI for the Department of Health.
Jenkinson, S (2001)The Genius of Play: Celebrating the spirit of childhood. UK: The Bath
Press.
Jenkinson, S (2005) `Teaching the heart: the emotional value of play' in Burrell, A and Riley, J
eds Promoting Children's Well. Being in the Primary Years: The Right from the Start
Handbook. Stafford: Network Educational Press.
KlDS (2010a) The health benefits of play and physical activity for disabled children and young
people. London: KIDS.
LEGO Learning Institute (2002) Time for Playful Learning? A cross-cultural study of parental
values and attitudes towards children’s time for play. Billund: The Institute.
Lester S and Maudsley M. (2006) Play Naturally: A review of children’s natural play.
Commissioned by the Children’s Play Council.
Lester, S and Russell, W (2008) Play for a charge: play, policy and practice: a review of
contemporary perspectives: Summary report. London: Play England.
Lindon, J (2OO7) Understanding children and young people: Development from 5 -18 years.
London: Hodder Arnold.
Lindsey, E. & Mize, J. (2000) Parent-child physical and pretense play: Links to children's
social competence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46, 565-591
Living Streets (2009) No Ball Games Here (or Shopping or Talking to their Neighbours): How
UK streets have become no-go areas for our communities. London: Living Streets.
Lovett, J (2009) 'A behavioral paediatrician's perspective on helping children recover from
traumatic medical experiences', in Ebb, N (ed) Helping children and adolescents with chronic
and serious medical conditions: a strengths based approach. Chichester: Wiley.
Low Deiner, P and Qiu W (2007) 'Embedding physical activity and nutrition in early care and
education programmes', Zero to Three, 28, 13-18.
Mackett ,R et al (2007) ‘Children's independent movement in the local environment’, Built
Environment , 33, 4, 454-68.
Mainwaring, B and Taylor, C () The benefits of play and playwork: recent evidence-based
research (2001-2006) demonstrating the impact and benefits of play and playwork. London:
Community and Youth Workers Union and SkillsActive.
Marjanovic-Umek, L and Lesnik-Musek, P (2001), 'Symbolic Play: Opportunities for cognitive
and
language
development
in
preschool
settings
', Early Years, 21, 1, 55-64
Mayall, B (2000) ‘The sociology of childhood in relation to children’s rights’, The International
Journal of Children’s Rights, 8, 3, 243–59.
McLoyd, V.C. (1986) Scaffolds or shackles? The role of toys in preschool children's pretend
play. In. G. Fein and M. Rivkin (Eds.), The young child at play (Washington, DC, National
Association for the Education of Young Children) pp. 63-78
Milano, K (2007) 'Prevention: the first line of defense against childhood obesity ', Zero to
Three, 28, 1, 6-11.
Moore, R (1986) Childhood’s Domain: Play and place in child development. London: Croom
Helm.
www.btha.co.uk
Moore, R and Cosco, N (2009) ‘The re-emerging importance of outdoor play in nature’,
Playrights Magazine, 1, 4-6.
Morrow, V (2006) ‘Understanding Gender Differences in Context: Implications for young
children’s everyday lives’, Children and Society, 20 (2): 92-104.
Neuman, S and Roskos, K (1992), 'Literacy Objects as Cultural Tools: Effects on Children's
Literacy
Behaviors
in
Play',
Reading
Research
Quarterly,
27, 3, 202-225
Neuman, S and Roskos, K (1993), 'Access to Print for Children of Poverty: Differential Effects
of Adult Mediation and Literacy-Enriched Play Settings on Environmental and Functional Print
Tasks',
American
Educational
Research,
30, 1, 95-122
NICE (2008) Promoting physical activity for children: Review 8 – Active play Physical activity
and children: review of learning from practice: children and active play. London: NICE.
NICE (2010) Preventing unintentional injuries among under 15s: outdoor play and leisure
consultation draft 2010. London: NICE.
Oksnes, M (2008) ‘The carnival goes on and on! Children’s perceptions of their leisure time
and play in SFO’, Leisure Studies, 27, 2, 149–64.
Open Space (2006) The role of wild adventure space in young people’s lives. Edinburgh:
Open Space.
Open
University
()
Play,
learning
and
the
brain.
http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=397465&printable=1
Paquette, D. et al (2003) Prevalence of father-child rough-and-tumble play and physical
aggression in preschool children. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 18, 171-189
Parrish, A-M et al (2009) ‘What factors influence children's activity?’, British Journal of School
Nursing, 4, 6-10.
Pellegrini, A. D. & Galda, L. (1982) 'The effects of thematic-fantasy play training on the
development of children's story comprehension, American Educational research Journal, 19,
443-452
Pellegrini, A (2008) ‘The recess debate: A disjunction between educational policy and
scientific research’, American Journal of Play, 1, 2, 181–91.
Pellegrini, AD and Holmes, RM ‘The role of recess in primary school’, in Singer, DG, Golinkoff,
RM and Hirsh-Pasek, K (eds) (2006) Play = Learning: How play motivates and enhances
children’s cognitive and social-emotional growth, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Playday (2007) Our Streets Too! London: Play England. Available online:
www.playday.org.uk/playday_campaigns/2007_our_streets_too/2007_research.aspx
Power, T. (2000) Play and exploration in children and animals, London: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, pp. 362-375
Pretty, J and others (2009) Nature, childhood, health and life pathways. Colchester:
University of Essex.
Ridgers, ND, Stratton, G and Fairclough, SJ (2005) ‘Assessing physical activity during recess
using accelerometer’, Preventive Medicine, 41, 2, 26–9.
Ross, N (2007) 'My journey to school ... foregrounding the meaning of school journeys and
children's engagements and interactions in their everyday localities’, Children's Geographies,
4, 373-91.
Rubin, K.H. (1980) 'Fantasy play:its role in the development of social skills and social
cognition, in K.H. Rubin (Ed.) Children's Play (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass), pp. 69-84
Saunders, L and Broad, B (1997) The Health Needs of Young People Leaving Care. De
Montfort University
Sherbert Research (2009) Customer Voice Research: Play. London: Department for Children
Schools and Families.
Singer, J. (1994) Imaginative play and adaptive development. In J. Goldstein (ed.), Toys, play
and child development. Cambridge University Press
Smilansky, S. (1968) 'The Effects fo Sociodramatic Play on Disadvantaged Preschool
Children (New York, Wiley)
www.btha.co.uk
Spilsbury, J, C (2005) ‘We Don’t Really Get To Go Out in the Front Yard – Children’s Home
Range and Neighbourhood Violence’, Children’s Geographies, 3(1): 79-99.
Statham, J and Chase, E (2010) Childhood Wellbeing: A brief overview. Loughborough:
Childhood Wellbeing Research Centre.
Sustainable Development Commission (2007) Every Child’s Future Matters.
Sutton-Smith, B. (1997) The Ambiguity of Play, Harvard University Press
Thayer, P (2009) ‘Meeting the spiritual needs of children with chronic and life threatening
illness’, in Boyd Webb, N (ed) op cit.
Thigpen, B (2007) ' Outdoor play: combating sedentary Lifestyles’, Zero to Three, 28, 1,19-23.
Thompson, J. et al (2010 'Physically active families-debunking the myth? A qualitative study
of family participation in physical activity', Child: Care, Health and Development, 36, 2, 26574.
UNICEF (2007) Child poverty in perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries.
Florence: UNICEF.
Wood, E (2007) ‘New directions in play: consensus or collision?’, Education 3-13, 35, 4, 30920.
Worpole, K and Knox, K (2007) The Social Value of Public Spaces. York: Joseph Rowntree
Foundation.
Zeiher, H ‘Shaping daily lives in urban environments’, in Christensen, P and O’Brien, M (eds)
(2003) Children in the City. London: Routledge Falmer.
Zigler, E and Bishop-Josef, (2009) ‘Play under siege: a historical perspective’, Zero to Three,
30, 1, 4-11.
www.btha.co.uk