Introduction

In recent years, advocates of early childhood education and care (ECEC) have raised concerns regarding the availability for children to access opportunities to develop resilience and self-regulation through adventures and risk-taking (Bundy et al., 2009; Masters & Grogan, 2018). This concern is shared by Sandseter and colleagues (2017) who note that safety legislation in Western societies has been a contributor to planning and organising play environments and how children’s play is organised. In Australia, the focus of this study, Masters and Grogan (2018, p. 235) found that risk management guidelines were ‘more likely to restrict free play in nature’, thus limiting children’s development. More broadly, research has found that exposing children to risky situations as part of their play and providing occasions to discuss safe behaviours builds safety risk intelligence (O’Neill, 2016). Safety risk intelligence forms where children’s competencies and skill development empower children to take ownership of their own safety (O’Neill, 2016). One way of facilitating children’s risk intelligence is by exploring natural, underdeveloped play spaces (Sandseter, 2009).

Whilst undertaking play that is specifically unstructured and nature-based, for the purposes of this paper titled ‘nature-play’ (Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles et al. 2021; Dankiw et al., 2020; Knight, 2016), children have been observed to develop risk-taking behaviours (Sandseter, 2009; Sandseter et al., 2020). The level of risk-taking in nature play differs between children (Sandseter, 2009a) yet research indicates that all children, both boys and girls, engage in risky play (Kvalnes & Hansen Sandseter, 2023). Research has found that risky play is often an exhilarating experience for young children that dissipates as we transition into adulthood (Sandseter et al., 2020). Additionally, time spent playing outside has been shown to contribute to reducing risk of peer difficulties and enhanced prosocial behaviours (Mygind et al., 2022).

There has been widespread growth in ECEC in nature-based settings, such as nature kindergartens and forest schools, resulting in many different interpretations of nature-based ECEC contexts around the world (Knight, 2016). Nature kindergartens apply natural environments and outdoor play-based activity to develop young children’s social, emotional, and science learning (Coates & Pimlott-Wilson, 2019; Harris, 2018). Recently, the forest school approach to ECEC has been taken up in growing numbers in Australia. In many cases, it has translated into nature or bush kindergartens (often titled bush kinder), an approach to nature-based ECEC adapted to suit Australian conditions informed by their European and UK counterparts.

Australian bush kinder research (Christiansen et al., 2018; Elliott & Chancellor, 2014) and the research of nature-based ECEC (Wilson, 2018) has tended towards the positive aspects in terms of children’s affinity with the natural world. More recently Australian bush kinder scholarship has contributed to the discourse relating to early childhood pedagogy and STEM teaching and learning (Speldewinde, 2022a, Speldewinde & Campbell, 2023). Yet, the connections between children’s risky play in nature and science learning that includes biological and ecological systems, physical and chemical sciences evident in bush kinders, has received little attention to date. To define science here, it is considered as the knowledge or a system of knowledge covering the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method (Merriam Webster Dictionary, 2020). The method and the knowledge of science are equally important to taking a ‘systematic approach in which hypotheses are tested through observation and experimentation’ (Turner & Williams, 2020, p. 3). The definition of science in ECEC is often reliant upon pre-primary school level curriculum documents such as the Australian Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) (AGDE, 2022) and what is commonly termed play-based learning. The interpretation of science is where children become independent observers of everyday objects, materials, and living things.

This paper applies an ethnographic approach (Delamont, 2016; Madden, 2017) as its research methodology. Fieldwork observations and the interactions that occur between children and educators, written as vignettes, are analysed here to illustrate how risky play intersects with science learning in bush kinders. This paper reinterprets EBH Sandseter’s work and her substantial, valuable contribution to theorising risky play. This paper is novel as it contributes to the scholarship of both risky play discourse and how the environment available in natural surroundings contributes to young children’s science learning. It responds to the research question, how does the risky play that occurs in a bush kinder support children’s science learning in the early years?

Bush Kinders: A Background

Australian ECEC often occurs in weatherboard or ‘bricks and mortar’ buildings and spaces that are defined and enclosed. These spaces frequently act to ensure children’s safety within the confines of the place of learning (AGDE, 2022; Campbell & Speldewinde, 2019). Australian children who attend kindergarten or preschool are generally aged three to five years and the learning that occurs is commonly play-based (Christiansen et al., 2018). The kindergarten space is often characterised by playground spaces, at times these are outdoor areas and include a range of artificial play equipment such as climbing frames, sandpits. toys and playhouses. Children’s freedom of movement can be limited and much of the natural environment has been altered leaving little or no room to explore nature (Campbell & Speldewinde, 2019).

Early in the 21st Century, educators began to realise the benefits of taking preschool children into nature (Knight, 2016), to sites such as nature kindergartens or ‘bush kinders’ and have adopted approaches to nature-based teaching and learning resembling their Scandinavian and UK counterparts (Elliott & Chancellor, 2014). Through time spent in bush kinders, it has been observed that educators can deepen their understandings of and relationships with children, while enhancing the attitudes of families and wider community towards natural places for play and children’s risk management (Elliott & Chancellor, 2014). Bush kinder sites provide a point of difference from traditional kindergarten settings as well as children’s excursions to outdoor locations such as parks, farms or zoos. Emergent bush kinder programmes remain dynamic and contextualised due to the limited formal education and professional learning available to prepare educators who work in them. There remains only limited agreed sets of bush kinder curricula practices in Australian states like Victoria, and these are determined by local government or other regulatory bodies (Campbell & Speldewinde, 2019). These practices are often varied and differ between regions.

Bush kinders are places that provide freer movement and outdoor play and learning opportunities within the same outdoor setting often for three to four hours weekly, all-year round, and in almost all types of weather. Groups of up to 25 children learn and play in wide-open nature spaces, experiencing seasonal changes with different plants and animals present (Truscott, 2020). Artificial and synthetic materials are rarely provided; children are reliant on what nature provides for their play-based learning. The bush kinder is viewed by kindergarten providers as one response to an Australian government’s policy directive where four-year-old children are given access to 15 h of quality preschool per week (Elliott & Chancellor, 2014). The quality of this set time at preschool, in part includes providing engaging outdoor experiences. Australia’s EYLF (DEEWR, 2009), when introduced in 2009, played a role in guiding educators to pedagogical practices and principles and has been a factor in the development of bush kinders. Within the EYLF (further revised in 2022), educators are encouraged to ‘create physical learning environments that have a positive impact on children’s learning’ (AGDE, 2022, p. 14). The EYLF also highlights that through natural environments, a platform is provided for ‘ongoing environmental education’ (AGDE, 2022, p. 16). Similarly, the natural environment facilitates ‘open-ended play and interactions, physically active play and games, spontaneity, risk-taking, exploration, discovery and connection with nature’ (AGDE, 2022, p.22).

What makes bush kinders a new addition to ECEC is highlighted by Christiansen et al. (2018). They discuss that the growth of the Australian nature kindergarten movement has led to services developing independent programmes in parallel to, rather than directly importing or adopting, approaches from elsewhere. When the research that informs this paper commenced, the bush kinders being researched were at a developmental stage, most having only begun one year prior to the beginning of this study. This led to some uncertainty as to what would be encountered in the field sites being studied but over time, it has been reported elsewhere that bush kinders offer a range of learning experiences for children (Hughes, 2022; Truscott, 2020). Amongst these learning experiences for these early years learners is a range of science experiences (Masters & Grogan, 2015).

Science Education in the Early Years

There is wide acceptance that science learning experiences during a child’s early years are essential for their development of scientific knowledge and inquiry skills (Eshach & Fried, 2005). Children have been observed to enjoy and explore nature, and to think about what is occurring in the natural world around them (Campbell & Howitt, 2023). Often, children instigate play in nature leading to discovery and the learning of science (Campbell & Speldewinde, 2020). Science content including physical, chemical and biological science that Paige (2023) defines respectively as understanding the nature of matter, energy, forces and motion (physical); understanding how substances are composed and behave (chemical) and; understanding living things (biological), fit well into learning about the natural world within a bush kinder site. Science skills (Guarrella et al., 2022) that include observing, classifying, comparing, predicting, and recording also have a place in children’s learning whilst at a bush kinder. Through curiosity of living and non-living things embodied in each of the physical, chemical and biological sciences, and understanding of cause-and-effect, children can notice patterns and similarities in the world around them and build an aptitude for deepening understandings of science (Campbell & Howitt, 2023). Often, inquiry-based learning is applied by educators in science teaching and learning in the early years (Howitt, 2021). Inquiry-based science learning ‘encourages children to think and work in a scientific manner to answer questions, allowing them to act like scientists’ (Howitt, 2021, p. 93). The process of scientific inquiry supports the development of problem solving, questioning and exploration, often through play in nature when children. Play is also important in early childhood as it can provide a link to young children’s science learning (Hesterman & Hunter, 2021).

Science education curriculum in the context of Australian ECEC is influenced by EYLF (AGDE, 2022). Through the adoption of an approach that is often child-centred, the EYLF (AGDE, 2022) directs educators to ‘draw on a rich repertoire of pedagogical practices to inform curriculum for children’s learning, development and wellbeing (p. 20).’ This can be achieved through a number of principles that incorporate: the adoption of holistic, interconnected and integrated approaches to children’s wellbeing and learning; being responsive to children’s strengths and capabilities; planning and implementing intentional play-based learning; creating learning environments that include physical, temporal, intellectual, social and emotional elements; being culturally responsive and attentive; delivering experiences with continuity and enabling effective transitions and; embedding practices of assessment to achieve intended learning outcomes that includes observation, documentation, analysis, planning, implementing and critical reflection. The first iteration of the EYLF (DEEWR, 2009) lacked any mention of science which has been remedied in a limited fashion in the Framework’s second version through occasional mention of providing science learning experiences for children (AGDE, 2022). Where this has become problematic, as discussed by Guarrella and colleagues (2022), is that due to the lack of acknowledgment of science teaching and learning in the EYLF, educators are left to their own devices, with minimal guidance to plan for the inclusion of science in ECEC.

Risk and Nature Play

Kvalnes & Hansen Sandseter, (2023) identified that everybody plays; a voluntary activity, it is the activity that occurs during play that is more important than the objective of the play itself. Play ‘is driven by intrinsic motivation that is self-initiated and self-controlled’ (Kvalnes & Hansen Sandseter, 2023, p. 14). Children have been observed to describe play as an activity that is fun, self-invented, not directed by adults and where the possibilities are endless (Kvalnes & Hansen Sandseter, 2023). The value of play and its connection to risk is embedded within the Australia’s EYLF (AGDE, 2022). Within the EYLF it is noted that children can build self-identity and self-worth by taking calculated risks during their play. Further to this, children’s wellbeing is enhanced when educators ‘provide well-planned and challenging outdoor environments that encourage risk-taking and risky play experiences’ (p. 47).

Natural environments, such as those present in a bush kinder, have been found to be rich in opportunities for play that is physically or emotionally challenging for children (Fjørtoft, 2004; Sandseter & Kennair, 2011). Children’s autonomy is encouraged by educators during nature play (Ernst et al., 2022). Nature play is influenced by the educator’s pedagogical approach to support children’s deeper understandings of the environment (Speldewinde & Campbell, 2023). Nature play however is ‘not just any type of outdoor play…(it) involves playing with nature, not just in nature’ (Wilson, 2018, p. 12). The provision of natural spaces containing loose items such as sticks, leaves, and rocks, complemented by unstructured free play, provides myriad opportunities for nature play that incorporates activity, creativity and social interactions (Ernst et al., 2022). Children’s nature play creates opportunities for developing projects, solving problems, planning and organising and risk-taking during play (Carr et al., 2017).

Mygind and colleagues (2022, p.2) found that ‘risky play is thought to nurture motor skills and bodily mastery, but also promote emotional understanding and management, as well as providing a sense of accomplishment and agency.’ Sandseter (2009) identified that risky play has positive and negative attributes of being thrilling and exciting and involve the potential for physical injury. The potential for physical risk including injury during play led to attention being directed to play safety and playground design being legislated. Away from prefabricated playgrounds, pre-school children consider natural playscapes fun, more exciting than traditional playgrounds and while in nature, as opposed to traditional playgrounds, children have been observed to develop better motor abilities (Fjørtoft, 2000). Despite the opportunities available for children by playing in nature, educators in Australian ECEC settings have proven in the past to be risk-averse when it comes to outdoor play when compared to their Scandinavian counterparts, often cognisant of potential litigation. This has been attributed to the differing beliefs, practices and policies within each country (Sandseter et al., 2012) as well as parental perceptions of risk that can act as barriers to nature play (Mygind et al., 2022). Despite the risks, Elliott and Chancellor (2014, p. 50) found that parents ‘frequently reported that their children were very positive, enthusiastic or readily embraced Bush Kinder’ stating that they ‘cannot express how beneficial it is for kids to climb trees: they feel the thrill of mastering a challenge; develop eye/hand coordination; learn risk assessment skills; develop problem-solving skills; literally get a feel for nature.’ Four-year-olds’ risky play that occurred in a forest school was often observed to be more diverse in characteristics than what was occurring in the regular playground (Waters & Begley, 2007 in Elliott & Chancellor (2014).

To define and classify children’s risky play, Sandseter (2009) drew upon the Norwegian context to develop six categories. These categories were increased in number to eight by Kleppe and colleagues (2017). These eight categories of risky play are: play at great heights with an inherent risk of falling; play with high speeds involving uncontrolled pace that could lead to collisions; play with dangerous tools such as sharp sticks; play with dangerous elements such as fires, bodies of water, or cliffs; rough and tumble play that includes wrestling, stick fighting and play fighting; play where the children can disappear, where the adults lose sight of the children or the children are lost; impactful play where a child, for instance, children crashing into each other for the sake of the play; and vicarious risk when a young child observes another child, often older, doing something for the exciting experience (Kvalnes & Hansen Sandseter, 2023). These categories of risky play provide the basis to analyse the examples of risky play involving science learning in Australian bush kinders.

Methodology

This paper reports on findings that applies data gathered in 2023 during a longitudinal study that commenced in 2015. The initial aim of the research was to investigate how science teaching and learning occurs in nature-based ECEC contexts such as bush kinders (Campbell & Speldewinde, 2019). The study applied an ethnographic design (Delamont, 2016; Madden, 2017), which led to several sub-themes being uncovered including science concepts and skills teaching and learning, gender, educator pedagogy, and children’s STEM identity. Further fieldwork in 2017 and 2020 and resultant data interpretation led to the theorising of a model for integrated STEM teaching and learning (Speldewinde, 2022a). Then, through ethnographic participant observation during fieldwork in 2023 that focussed on children’s risk and resilience in nature-based learning, children’s risk-taking behaviours (Sandseter, 2009) became apparent whilst they were learning about the science in nature and the environment.

Ethnography’s value as a methodological approach comes from the researcher’s immersion in social-cultural contexts. The researcher can develop deep knowledge through close and extended interactions with educators and children over an extended period (Last, 2019). Through observing and participating in the teaching and learning, the ethnographer can notice what is happening around them. Then, by spending time conducting fieldwork with children and educators, trust often grows leading to strong relationships (Delamont, 2016). The educators involved in this research were all experienced and, while preschool children generally attend a bush kinder for one calendar year, educators can work in the same bush kinder setting for years. Several educator participants in this research had been teaching in bush kinders for almost a decade and the close interactions I have had over the duration of this research were evidenced by the warm response received when enquiring about returning to undertake research in 2023.

Regular bush kinder attendance in this study, and observing how educators support children to develop their understanding of the science in nature, were beneficial in noticing the risky play that was occurring. Bush kinder educators were observed often adopting a child-led pedagogy, where the children lead their learning through play-based discovery (Speldewinde & Campbell, 2023), but due to the always seasonally changing nature of the bush kinder sites, there were also changing approaches to the facilitation of teaching and learning. Occasionally for example, the learning was educator-led (Speldewinde & Campbell, 2023) and included intentional teaching (Speldewinde et al., Under review). Ethnography was beneficial to the researcher as it often supports participation in the daily events occurring around them over time. The researcher can be drawn into the educator’s teaching, the children’s play or they can switch guises to become an observer who is distant from or close to the children’s activity (Speldewinde, 2022a). Both the children’s development as well as growth in educator knowledge over time that are captured by the researcher through ethnography, in this instance the risky play and science knowledge development as it occurs, can clarify the researcher’s contextual understanding (Last, 2019).

Participants and Data Generation Methods and Analysis

To further inquire into how risky play complemented science teaching, I drew upon what Madden (2017, p. 25) describes as ‘a particular set of methods’ to generate the data. The data applied in this paper was collected through journal notes in ‘data logs’ taken both in the field and upon returning from the field. These data logs formed documentary evidence of what was seen during time spent as a participant observer (Madden, 2017). Images such as those used in this paper, and the quotes applied here are drawn from informal conversations with children and educators, and were captured on iPads and handheld voice recorders. The ethnographic data applied and analysed in this paper is drawn from researcher participation and observations, my field notes and photographs of the events that occurred while conducting fieldwork. Photographs were taken in 2023 during the 32 regular bush kinder visitations. Often photographs were taken at random, in the moment, as science teaching and learning was occurring. This was sometimes problematic as the moment would be fleeting and the opportunity to photograph would be missed. Occasionally, the educator would draw my attention to their intention to involve themselves in the children’s play and the questioning they would undertake so I could be prepared. On other occasions, the educator had planned for intentional teaching to occur and again, they would prepare me for this, ensuring I was aware of the significant opportunity of take photographs of science teaching and learning. Each of the four bush kinders was visited for between three and five hours each week for three to four weeks across three school terms. 15 educators and approximately 220 children were observed as four separate bush kinder groups. Through drawing upon the data derived from my participant observation of children’s risky play, listening to conversations between educators, between children and between children and educator, my understanding of educators’ and children’s learning of science through risky play became apparent. To provide a spread across the data collection period, the four vignettes which form the data in this paper are representative of terms three and four, drawing on events that occurred in July, August, September and October. The four vignettes were selected from many dozens of rich examples to support the narrative of this paper as they are representative of the science learning activities occurrences that would consistently occur in a bush kinder. They are a cross-section of the data and were chosen as they represent children’s risky play coinciding with physical, chemical and biological science learning in action, The vignettes also serve to demonstrate the educators’ science teaching in bush kinder setting.

Over the duration of the earlier fieldwork between 2015 and 2020 conducted by the author (Speldewinde, 2022b), bush kinder educators from four bush kinders participated in the study. Following a break due to the COVID-pandemic, and employment changes to the research team, the research recommenced in 2023 with two of the original bush kinders and one new site. All but one of the bush kinders studied had been operating since 2015 with the other commencing in 2019. Children attending the bush kinders were aged 4 to 5 years and in their year prior to commencing primary school. The bush kinders would take place at sites with varying characteristics, two occurred in public parklands maintained by the local council, one was held on private land (in a farmer’s paddock), another was held in a national park. Two of the bush kinder groups held sessions for one term at a beach location. The bush kinder locations varied considerably in what was available for risky play and often the location would be an important determinant of the science teaching. For example, some sites did not have trees suitable for climbing, some had thick grassed areas that could be home to snakes but would not provide many sticks for play, and other sites had limited water. All educators observed were similar in their pedagogical approach, allowing the children to lead the learning through play and discovery (Speldewinde & Campbell, 2023). The educators emphasised science learning in their programs but the level of risky play differed at times depending on the educator’s risk averseness and comfort with children’s risk taking. One educator observed was open to giving children ample opportunities for risky play, only intervening if children became distressed, then taking the opportunity to teach the children about their level of risk taking. Another educator was less prone to allow risky play, not allowing the children to have ‘stick fights’ and wanting to stay close to children if they were tree climbing. During the data collection, I made the educators aware that one of my research foci was risky play. From when I commenced data collection in 2023, it was apparent through my conversations in the field, that most of the 15 educators had little knowledge of the scholarship of risky play. They were all well versed in science teaching and learning and regularly would use an emergent curriculum or intentional teaching to foster children’s understanding of science knowledge. Despite their lack of awareness of Sandseter’s forms of risky play, the educators accepted that risky play was occurring. I conducted conversations while at the bush kinders with the educators regarding the different types of risky play, particularly rough and tumble play and play at great heights, as these were prevalent in many of the sessions I attended. I even furnished one educator (Cathy) with one of Sandseter’s papers when she showed interest in the eight forms of risky play. As I spent more time in the bush kinders, I found myself highlighting the other forms of risky play I was witnessing. University ethics approval was gained (University of Melbourne ref # 2023-26094-39761-3) as well as regulatory bodies’ (Department of Education Victoria ref # 2023-004730) and procedures put in place following Human Research Ethics protocols. Participation in the research was voluntary and signed consents by the kindergarten organisation, its teachers and its parents were obtained using the University’s formats. All names of individuals and places used in this paper are pseudonyms.

Here, a thematic approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006) has been applied to analyse the data. The process adopted the three-phase thematic analysis model described by Lochmiller (2021) which incorporates setup, analysis and interpretation phases. Having observed and participated in many bush kinder sessions, whilst in the field, I came to the realisation that risky play and science were occurring simultaneously; what I needed to do was to consciously review all my data to determine how often these intersections occurred and what different examples I had recorded. As Lochmiller describes, time needed to be invested in preparing the data for analysis (set up phase), so I took my researcher journal and photographic data and consolidated these data into a Microsoft Word document. Then I reviewed for the data examples of risky play, conducting what Lochmiller describes as the second phase of analysis. Following coding and asking, ‘What risky play is happening?’ within the dataset (Lochmiller, 2021), with the additional insights from Sandseter’s numerous studies of risky play, my insights were confirmed that in many cases, children were building science knowledge while undertaking risky play. To conduct the interpretive phase, an Excel spreadsheet was constructed, recording physical, chemical, and biological science learning in individual columns and the risky play forms in eight rows. Then the data was analysed by placing the text or photographic example into the relevant spreadsheet cell. From the more than fifty examples resultant in the spreadsheet, four examples, representative of the data, were chosen to be applied into vignettes.

Findings

Vignette 1: Play at Great Heights and Physical Science

We know that ‘gravity is a thing that makes things fall’ (Campbell et al., 2021, p. 305). Bush kinders often are spaces where trees with varying characteristics abound. The tree species available can range from small saplings to much larger, taller long-established trees. Some children are adept at tree climbing and climbing provides opportunities for children to develop understandings of physical science of motion and gravity. One such example occurred at Greenfields Bush Kinder:

For a four-year-old child, tree climbing can pose challenges. I stood with Bernie, one of four educators. We watched from a distance as Poppy attempted to climb a tree. This was not a tall tree as it had grown at an angle that made it suitable for small child to climb. Poppy’s first attempt at climbing was unsuccessful, she fell from the tree and looked at us, seeking permission to cry. Bernie and I did not acknowledge Poppy, waiting see what she would do next. Poppy tried again, falling a second time onto the soft earth that was littered with leaves. This time Poppy ignored us, determined and then she successfully began to scale the tree (Fig. 1). We moved over to Poppy and Bernie asked ‘why do you keep falling down, what makes things fall down from trees?’ Poppy replied ‘I think it is gravity.’ Bernie, continued to ask Poppy about gravity then asked Poppy about what she had learned about climbing. Poppy said she had to hold on tightly but wasn’t scared of falling off because ‘the ground was nice and soft.’

Fig. 1
figure 1

Play at great heights

Full size image

Vignette 2: Play Near Dangerous Elements and Biological Science

The Australian bush poses risks. Snakes, as well as biting and stinging insects such as ants, spiders, and bees are prevalent. Young children learn about the biological science that ‘small animals have a variety of external features that help them to survive’ (Campbell et al., 2021, p. 300). Occasionally children are bitten by an ant or stung by a bee. Plants can be thorny and present sharp edges or, if ingested, fungi can cause significant illness. Vignette two accounts one example observed at a bush kinder. The risky play that involved two boys and their exploration of the fungi growing (Fig. 2) at Whitesands Bush Kinder:

Andrew and Matty had spent much of the first two hours at bush kinder running and were quite tired. Looking for something to do, Natalia one of the bush kinder educators, suggested they go on a treasure hunt. Natalia explained to the boys that because it was quite wet, being early winter, many different types of fungi had started to grow in the forest and that the boys could look for different fungi. Natalia asked the boys ‘what is it about the fungi they could look for?’ Andrew said ‘there could be different colours’ and Matty said ‘they might come in different shapes. ‘What else could you look for?’ said Natalia and Matty replied ‘some could be bigger than others.’ The boys were about to commence their fungi search when Natalia asked the boys, what can’t we do with fungi. Quizzically the boys looked at Natalia who said, ‘remember you can’t touch them as you might damage them and they might be poisonous. Boys, my rule is don’t pick and don’t lick’. The boys moved around the bush kinder for 15 minutes then beckoned excitedly to us, calling ‘come and see what we’ve found’. Their treasure was located, three fungi that they described as orange, small and round that they showed us using small sticks as pointers, careful not to touch the fungi.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Play near dangerous elements

Full size image

Vignette 3: Play at High Speed, Rough and Tumble Play, and Physical Science

Children can be limited in their ability to run freely at their regular kindergarten. Young children can comprehend that ‘forces can make things move or stop’ (Campbell et al., 2021, p. 305). Bush kinders, with their wide-open spaces, provide children with the propensity to run, at times, at pace. This third vignette describes the risky play and games children played at Whitesands Bush Kinder See Figs. 3, 4, 5.

On a cool winter morning, the bush kinder group had been playing. The four educators actively encouraged the boys and girls to run about to stay warm. The children would often bump into each other, on other occasions, wrestling to the ground, rolling about. Two boys were kicking at each other, at times balancing on one leg and hopping about, trying not to fall over. Then others would be running at pace, dodging around the trees, yelling excitedly, at times deliberately crashing into each other and falling to the ground. Sticks would be picked up, used as weapons. The educators would occasionally stop the children to ensure they are safe at the same time talking about the sensation of running with force and around rolling and how it felt to fall to the ground. The educators also gave the children a ‘stick licence’ which could be revoked at any time if the sticks were not used in a safe manner (for example, kept below waist height and not used to hit other children). The educators also spoke to the children about caring for the environment and at one point stopped the children and said to them that they should ‘only be using sticks already on the ground so that they didn’t damage the trees and to be conscious of other living things like fungi and worms’. Eventually, exhausted, the girls and boys stopped to eat their lunch.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Rough and tumble play and Play at high speed

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Impactful play and with dangerous tools

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Impactful play

Full size image

Vignette 4: Play Where Children get Lost and Chemical Science

This vignette describes children having fun watching water turn browner through the mixing of earth and water to form mud. ‘Mixing refers to the addition of various substances together where no new material is formed’ (Campbell et al., 2021, p. 303). One child began, describing its properties, then another child, closely watching joined in for the excitement of the experience See Fig. 6.

Liam and Sam had moved away from the group and for a few minutes were out of sight of the educators, secreted away behind some trees at Whitesands Bush Kinder. I was walking around the site and spied the two boys. For some time, I kept my distance, understanding they wanted to remain ‘lost’ and hidden from the teachers. I felt this was a good thing and the boys must have wanted to play without educator involvement. Eventually, approaching them as they had seen me, I asked if I could watch from nearby. I watched as one boy tipped his drinking water onto the ground and mixed the water with a stick to make mud. I asked the boy ‘what will you do with the mud?’ He said ‘make a mud ball.’ One educator, Cathy, turned to me and mused ‘Do I let them play knowing that this is their drinking water?’ Cathy joined the conversation, asking Liam ‘what if you run out of drinking water?’ Liam did not know how to respond, shrugging his shoulders. Cathy probed further now the boys realised they had little water to drink for the rest of the session but kept stirring the mud in readiness to be rolled into a ball. Cathy then asked further about the boys mixing of the mud, what they were experiencing and how the mixture had changed with more and more stirring. The stirring went on…

Fig. 6
figure 6

Mixing mud

Full size image

Discussion

During children’s bush kinder play, I witnessed children’s different forms of risk taking (Sandseter, 2009). Whilst the children were involved in their risky play, the educators were observed acknowledging the risk taking and being opportunistic in building children’s science knowledge. The following discussion aims to confirm the importance that the combination of risky play and science education can have for young children’s understanding of the natural world around them. There is little evidence that this connection has been made in past research. Often, the risky play and science are considered individually, particularly when examining texts framed towards initial teacher education in science which can aim give educators guidance in ways to ensure children ‘make sense of the world around them’ (Campbell & Howitt, 2023, p. i). The analysis that follows here seeks to use the primary themes for this data analysis of physical, chemical and biological science to demonstrate the connectedness between science in ECEC and children’s risky play.

Physical Science and Risky play

Physical science teaching is apparent in Vignettes 1 and 3 and show the educators taking the opportunities available to them to foster understandings of force while children are involved in risky play that involves fast running, balancing on logs, rolling, and falling. The idea of being able to observe and hide, and keeping within a line of sight is also part of the educator practice evident in the vignettes. Poppy (Vignette 1) exhibited risk taking behaviour when climbing to a height well above the ground from where she could fall and injure herself. For the educator to discuss gravity with Poppy, it was important for her to have participation in risky play as without this play, the chance to teach about gravity may not have occurred. Rough and tumble play (Vignette 3) has been observed to be often encouraged by educators in bush kinders. The running, chasing and colliding that often occurred at speed complements Mygind and colleagues’ (2022) notion that the motor skills and bodily mastery are exhibited by participating in risky science nature play. Both Poppy and the children in Vignette 3 may develop science understanding from the impact of force and motion as the tears which I observed from the impact falling to the ground or colliding with other children became valuable science teaching moments for the educators. Consequentially, risk taking behaviour such as short-term injury and the sense of shock from falling can promote children’s emotional management, build resilience and a sense of accomplishment and agency by achieving a goal during risky play and building an understanding of physical science such as gravity and force. Sandseter’s (2009) identification that risky play has positive and negative attributes of being thrilling and exciting and involve the potential for physical injury is confirmed in vignettes one and three but, as importantly, opportunities to include science teaching as part of risky play are evident in these two vignettes.

Chemical Science and Risky play

Occasions to teach chemical science in bush kinder often occur when children take opportunities to mix different elements in nature such as earth and water to create mud. When water is in limited supply this can lead to risk taking behaviours as educators such as Cathy (Vignette 4) can be risk averse and concerned regarding the use of the drinking water. The boys in Vignette 4 saw their play as exciting and adventurous, as they went off and purposefully hid away from the adults and their peers. This gave the boys the sense of autonomy that Ernst and colleagues (2022) highlight as a part of children’s nature play and risk taking. Without the risk taking of quietly becoming secreted away from the session, the boys may not have created an opportunity to learn about how materials can change. The subsequent opportunity for Cathy to then link the risky play and the chemical science associated with the properties of mud may not have arisen. It made this risk-taking behaviour a teaching moment valuable in building these boys’ chemical science knowledge that otherwise would not have been encouraged by Cathy.

Biological Science and Risky play

The Australian environment has many risks and allowing children to play in natural contexts often involves the educators undertaking a risk assessment of the bush kinder site. The potential for domestic dogs or wild animals such as snakes, scorpions, bees, mosquitos, ants, or spiders to be present where the bush kinder session occurs, adds an element of risk to children’s play. The presence of fungi, at times highly toxic, in Vignette 2 poses risks that the educators could use to teach the children about safe practices in nature as well as the biological science. Educators such as Natalia can use this as way to educate children about fungi lifecycles and the dangers associated with handling poisonous fungi thereby combining risky play and science. Fungi, therefore, provides an excellent topic for combining both risky play and science through its wide availability in the Australian environment. Learning of biological science and risky play can also extend to examples such as swooping birds seeking to protect a nest or biting insects such as mosquitos. Teaching opportunities can be made more complex as biological themes may be prevalent such as those which Campbell and colleagues (2021) describe which include the characteristics of seedpods, flowers, and butterflies and their life cycles. The educator in Vignette 2 proactively encouraging Andrew and Matty to look for fungi while also remaining vigilant about how they interact with the fungi provides confirmation that intersections between risky play and science teaching exist. Similarly, the educators who in Vignette 3 encouraged the rough and tumble and impactful play combined with the fast running, were cognisant to talk to the children not only of the risks associated with playing in this manner, but also of the biology of the landscape and how the children can respect the environment, not disturbing animal habitats or damaging trees (Campbell et al., 2021). These examples confirm the value integrating the teaching of biological science into children’s risky play.

Strengths and Limitations

A limitation of this paper is being unable to fully account for Sandseter’s eight types of risky play. Australian’s often risk-averse nature means that many educators will not allow young children to be exposed to some of the risky play categories. Play near dangerous elements or dangerous tools was not observed because tools that may cause injuries such as axes and sharp knives would rarely be given to young Australian children in ECEC settings and, as bush kinder educators often rely solely on what is available in nature for play, would be unlikely to have these on hand at a bush kinder. Occupational health and safety protocols would exclude Australian educators from conducting a bush kinder near a body of water that is dangerous. At beach kinders for example, educators have been observed to only allow children to enter the water up to their ankles. The small number of field sites are also a limitation in this research, this can be mitigated however by a strength of the study, its longitudinal nature, providing a breadth of experiences with different educators and children. The ability to return to the bush kinders multiple times assisted in building a robust understanding of what occurs in and during bush kinder sessions. Being present in a field site where seasonal changes that occur, rather than it being a static place for learning and teaching, allowed for the observation of children’s whose differing interests were being piqued, so a diverse range and volume of data was captured for analysis.

Conclusion

Science teaching and learning has a critical place in supporting children’s development of risk-taking behaviour. Through ongoing experience of teaching in a bush kinder, the educators have been observed to encourage the risks that children take during nature play. Embedding risky play in nature-based education contexts can play an important role in further developing approaches to ECEC nature-based science teaching. Risky play and science teaching and learning will be important to foster as nature-based programs such as bush kinders proliferate both in Australia and other contexts. With program growth will come deeper understandings of connections between children’s growing awareness of the science in the environment and risky play. It is important to acknowledge that in some contexts, nature may not provide suitable materials for some or all the elements of risky play. The Australian education landscape for example is one that is often risk averse (Sandseter et al., 2012) so it is important to acknowledge that a shift in educator thinking may be necessary to overcome predispositions towards risky play within this type of nature-based teaching and learning. Climatic conditions may also impede on children’s capacity to undertake risky play. In winter, trees may be too slippery to climb, in summer months venomous animals such as snakes may make it too risky to play vicariously or out of sight. These issues form part of the risk assessments educators may need to undertake to allow for risky play. Continuing to theorise how risky play forms part of the teaching and learning processes are applicable in nature-based ECEC contexts will become increasingly important as these sites flourish.

By examining further how risky play in nature-based teaching and learning contexts develop, children’s affinity for the simple and the complex physical, chemical and biological science in nature may become apparent. The knowledge children can gain from participating in risky play leading to science learning needs to be understood to appreciate risky play’s influence upon children’s uptake of the sciences into later years of schooling. The four examples provided in this paper are only a small sample of the myriad science experiences that were observed, yet they illustrate opportunities where science learning and teaching was embedded into risky-play-based teaching and learning. The examples analysed in this paper illustrate that science teaching and learning complement educators’ facilitation and encouragement of risky play. Science teaching is highly suited to a nature-based teaching environment and supports Sandseter’s (2009) notion that opportunities exist for children to learn through risky-play should be encouraged. What is also apparent is the educators’ capacity to take real-life risky play situations such as those highlighted here and apply them to bush kinder science teaching and learning. The opportunity exists for further research in this area to consider the broader context of STEM education and the children’s learning through interacting with nature. Educators can develop opportunities to devise methods to collect concrete evidence to base assessment and evaluation of children bush kinder learning as opposed to anecdotal evidence apparent in the vignettes here. Elsewhere, as the result of this research (Speldewinde, 2022a), it has been documented that children’s STEM noticing and confidence when being ‘in’ bush kinder develop over time and girls’ STEM identity grows because of bush kinder interactions (Speldewinde & Campbell, 2023). Seeking to further understand how girls and boys separately develop their science understandings through risky play is worthy of consideration. Finally, I argue that risky play is integral to building a child’s affinity with the science in nature. Potentially, further exploration of the direct and indirect outcomes for young children’s science learning combined with risky play needs to be given consideration into the future.