Introduction

Play is a fundamental aspect of children's lives that involves various interactions that reflect their goals and intentions (Wood, 2014). It is a natural and captivating activity that contributes to children's cognitive, physical, social, and emotional well-being, providing the essential conditions for them to thrive and learn. In early childhood, outdoor play is especially crucial because it supports children's physical development (Cevher-Kalburan, 2014; Dyment & Bell, 2007), encourages healthy living (Gray et al., 2015; Tandon et al., 2015), and cultivates an appreciation for nature and environmental responsibility (Alat et al., 2012; Wellhousen, 2002). In addition to providing fun and enjoyment, playing outdoors allows children to take and assess risks (Burçak, 2018; Waite et al., 2014). It also promotes collaboration with peers and adults, helps problem-solving (Dowdell et al., 2011; Tovey, 2007; Wellhousen, 2002), and enhances social interaction and skills development (Kroeker, 2014; Tepebağ, 2017). Well-structured outdoor spaces in schools can provide various learning opportunities, positively affect development, and boost children's play (Acer, 2018; Nielsen, 2006; Sturges et al., 2023). Woolley and Lowe (2013) state that the physical characteristics and materials of the play environment significantly impact the quality of children's play. According to Stephenson (2002), the unique characteristics and stimuli of outdoor play areas provide various play opportunities that are not easily imitated indoors. This introduction aims to explore the existing body of literature on the relationship between children's behaviour and outdoor play, with a specific emphasis on investigating the impact of environmental elements.

Interactions between children's behaviour and playing outdoors

The literature highlights several studies that have explored the behaviour of preschool children in outdoor play settings. According to Cloward Drown (2014), children aged 3–5 years tend to engage in dramatic and cooperative play that involves imagination while playing outdoors. Similarly, Flannigan and Dietze (2017), in their observations of preschool children's outdoor play, noted that children often work together towards common goals while engaging in dramatic play that involves different roles. Zamani's (2017) research findings indicate that four- to five-year-old children engage in functional and dramatic play mostly in outdoor spaces within childcare centres. Moreover, Holmes and Procaccino (2009) conducted a study on the outdoor activities of children aged three to four years, determining that cycling, playing in sandpits, swinging, sliding, climbing, and playing outdoors were the most favoured activities. Cetken-Aktas and Sevimli-Celik (2023) observed that the most common type of play in outdoor areas was functional/parallel play and that such play areas contained predominantly manufactured fixed equipment. The literature highlights that outdoor spaces in early childhood education institutions provide children with various play opportunities. Beyond specific studies, theoretical frameworks offer valuable insights into children's behaviour during outdoor play (Zeni et al., 2023).

Smilansky's cognitive play categories

Smilansky (1968) classified play into four stages based on Piaget's cognitive development theory (1962) and play classification. In line with the development of the child, the stages that start in infancy and continue in a fixed order are functional play, construction-building play, dramatic play, and rule-based play (Smilansky, 1968). According to this categorisation, first play emerges in toddlerhood with simple exploratory muscle movements such as running, jumping, and swinging (Cloward Drown, 2014). The ability to manipulate objects develops with age and accompanies building play (Rubin & Coplan, 1998). Objects such as blocks, sand, and stones in play environments can effectively stimulate children's manipulative motor skills. Symbolisation is another skill that develops in early childhood (Chakravarthi, 2009). Symbolisation skills enable children to create imaginary situations and use objects interchangeably (Smilansky, 1968). For example, children can use twigs as horses and play roles such as parents, doctors, and teachers. Thus, children who combine the possibilities they find in the environment with their imagination exhibit dramatic play behaviours that require a high cognitive level. In addition, play with predetermined rules can occur in early childhood (Smilansky, 1968). The difference between play and a game is that a play creates its own rules in line with the purpose of the players, but games such as tags and hopscotch have specific rules.

Parten social play classifications

One of the most critical dimensions of play is the social dimension that emerges when children interact with other individuals (Loebach et al., 2023; Parten, 1971). In contrast to unoccupied play and onlooker play, which indicate that the child is not interested in any play, solitary play, which occurs at the age of two or three, indicates a low level of social interaction (Xu, 2010). While playing alone in a sandbox is considered a solitary play behaviour, independent play with another child's participation in the same environment reveals parallel play, which incorporates a more developed social dimension (Chakravarthi, 2009). A suitable social environment is necessary for developing and emerging mature play behaviour. Preschool institutions, which play a part in most children's lives as of age three, provide this social environment. Thus, the frequency of associative and cooperative play behaviour increases (Parten, 1971). The critical point to be considered here is the difference between associative and cooperative play. Associative play includes much interaction, such as expressing interests and using social skills in a disorganised manner. Unlike associative play, cooperative play requires shared goals, planning and role distribution (Rubin & Coplan, 1998). Therefore, the value of observing children's play from the beginning of their development cannot be overstated, as it provides valuable information regarding their social play skills. These theoretical frameworks provide valuable perspectives for analysing the interactions between children's behaviour and outdoor play.

Influence of environmental elements on outdoor play

The outdoor environment provides a rich and dynamic context for children's play, offering diverse stimuli and opportunities for exploration. Several studies have examined the influence of environmental elements on children's play behaviours, detailed below.

Two preschool outdoor spaces with different natural elements, resources, and spatial characteristics were compared to examine how often and how complex sociodramatic play occurred among two groups of 4–5-year-old children. The results indicated that providing a balance of manufactured resources and natural loose parts, enabling opportunities for seclusion, creating linking pathways, and implementing open-ended design led to more frequent and complex sociodramatic play among children (Robertson et al., 2020). Similarly, Fjørtoft (2004) found that less structured items such as pinecones, stones, and sand enhance imaginative play. In addition, loose parts, known as objects, that are capable of being relocated, transported, modified, organised, disassembled, and reassembled in various manners, particularly natural parts, were found to be highly involved in outdoor play, especially exploratory play (Loebach & Cox, 2022). Debord et al. (2002) argued that wide spaces and fixed play equipment allow for play behaviour that requires physical movement. This finding overlaps with the statement of Bai et al. (2023) that physical activity hot spots in outdoor play areas are frequently found in open areas. Furthermore, Sandseter et al. (2021) conducted a study to examine the correlation between outdoor play areas and risky play. Their research suggested that fixed equipment for functional play and wheeled toys are positively connected with risky play. Storli et al. (2024) examined the influence of surfaces on play diversity. They found that functional play was positively correlated with resistant surfaces such as rubber, while constructive play was associated with low-resistance surfaces such as sand and the forest floor. This research highlights the complex connection between outdoor play environments and different aspects of children's play experiences. In addition, drawing from theoretical perspectives can help to understand the impact of environmental factors on children's outdoor play behaviours.

Kurt Lewin’s behaviour equation: \(\text{B}=f\left(\text{P}+\text{E}\right)\)

Examining the effect of the environment on play behaviour offers some important clues regarding the use and arrangement of outdoor spaces. According to Lewin (1936), behaviour always emerges as a result of the interaction of the individual and the environment: "behaviour = f (person + environment)". According to this equation, even if the environment is precisely the same, children in the same environment may not exhibit the same play behaviours or display different behaviours in similar environments (Lewin, 1936). The main point is that existing or non-existent conditions are perceived and believed to be real (Schellenberg, 1978). If a person is unaware of what the physical environment offers, the environment will likely not affect behaviour (Baldwin, 1980). For example, if a child is not aware of the sandbox hidden under the board, play behaviour cannot be expected to emerge through the sandbox. Moreover, certain features of an object influence play behaviour and how children perceive it. Each material can be a tool for children and, hence, a better understanding of the factors that drive play behaviours. For example, a child may believe a stick is a horse and play accordingly (Lewin, 1936).

The current study

This study aimed to examine the outdoor play behaviours of preschool children, their views regarding the outdoors, and their drawings of the outdoors, which represented their views. Dell (2018) defines preschoolers as competent social actors in their own experience, proving that actively involving children in the process is an effective strategy for their development. Accordingly, it was assumed that preschool children can verbally and visually express their thoughts and wishes regarding the schoolyard. Thus, the parallelism of expressions and behaviours related to the outdoors was evaluated by referring to interviews and observations. As a result, three research questions were addressed in this study:

  1. 1.

    What are the types of children's outdoor play?

  2. 2.

    What are children's thoughts about the outdoors?

  3. 3.

    What are the materials/toys and similar items that children want to see in outdoor schoolyards?

Contribution

This research provides insights into preschoolers' outdoor play behaviours and perceptions of outdoor environments, contributing significantly to early childhood education and outdoor play. The study observed and analysed preschoolers' play behaviours, highlighting the influence of physical conditions on their outdoor play activities and identifying specific features that preschoolers desire in their play environments. This information can inform educators, caregivers, and policymakers about the most engaging play activities for children in outdoor settings and guide the development of outdoor play areas tailored to children's preferences and needs. Additionally, the research contributes theoretical frameworks in environmental psychology and child development by providing empirical evidence of how outdoor spaces tailored to children's wishes and needs can encourage quality play behaviours.

Methods and Materials

Study group

The study group consisted of 16 children aged 60–69 months who attended a public preschool in Sinop, Türkiye. The kindergarten included in this research was determined to have a large outdoor area that provided the children with direct indoor-to-outdoor access, which was easily accessible by the researcher. Approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Ankara University prior to commencing the study to ensure that the research adhered to scientific principles and processes. In accordance with ethical principles, written consent from all parents and verbal consent from the children were obtained to include the children in the study group. The real names of the participants were not used in reporting the study findings. The girls were coded as G1, and the boys were coded as B1.

Designer procedure

According to Creswell (2017), mixed methods research design is a methodology that combines qualitative and quantitative research approaches within a single study to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the research problem. For this purpose, this study employed a mixed methods design. First, research questions that could benefit from both qualitative and quantitative perspectives were formulated. Then, to validate and support the research findings, triangulation was performed using different data sources, including observations, interviews and drawings. As a primary data collection tool, an observation form was developed to observe children's outdoor play in depth and to record frequency. A child interview form was developed as the second data collection tool to reveal preschool children's views about the outdoor play area of the institution. Drawings of children about the school garden they would like to see were planned to be used as an additional data source.

Data collection tools

Outdoor play behaviours observation form (see Appendix 1)

Observation forms allow for the systematic recording and analysis of specific behaviours (Creswell, 2017). An observation form was developed for the study to examine children's play behaviours regarding social and cognitive dimensions. A semi structured observation form and guide were created by the researcher by reviewing the relevant literature (Parten, 1971; Smilansky, 1968). The observation form was focused on the structure of play, type of play, theme of the play, type of materials used in the play, and role of the materials used. Clear definitions of key terms are provided in the table below to enhance precision and comprehension in academic discourse (see Table 1). The codes and themes obtained through content analysis are listed below (see Table 2). 

Table 1 Definitions of terms
Full size table
Table 2 Codes and themes
Full size table

Child interview form (see Appendix 2)

The researcher created semi structured interview questionnaires to address the research questions by utilising the literature. The interview form was designed with specific areas of focus, open-ended, easy to comprehend, and nondirective and contained only a few concise questions. Three experts with doctoral degrees reviewed the observation and interview form. Two experts were from the field of preschool education, and one was from the field of qualitative research. The experts' opinions were considered while designing the semi structured observation and interview form. A pilot study was conducted, which included observing children's outdoor play behaviours for one hour and interviewing three of them. The observation form was then reorganised based on the pilot study results to make it more user friendly. Finally, the forms were finalised for use in the study. This interview form aimed to gather the viewpoints of preschool children regarding the outdoor area. The interview questions are listed in Appendix 2. Additionally, interviews and drawings were utilised for the purpose of determining the similarity of the data collected via observation. The interview form included questions about children's opinions on the current schoolyard, favourite outdoor play areas and plays, disliked outdoor play areas and reasons for disliking them, and materials they would like to see in their schoolyard.

Drawings

As part of the interview process, the children were provided with drawing paper and coloured crayons and were asked to draw the play materials or areas that they would like to have in their school gardens. After they finished drawing, the children were requested to explain and describe their drawings.

Data collection process

Prior to conducting the research, the observer participated in a qualitative research course where they gained training and practical experience in the methodology of observation. Before starting the data collection process, the researcher formed a close relationship with the study group so their presence would not affect the natural flow of the play environment (Merriam, 2018). Afterwards, the outdoor play processes initiated by the 16 participating children were observed by the researcher, recorded on video for an average of 30 min and recorded through the observation form. During the observation, both the researcher and the class teacher were outdoors. The researcher's role was strictly as an observer, using video recording as the sole data collection method with no intervention. Observations focused on children's free playtime, during which the teacher remained passive to ensure the absence of adult influence on play behaviours. The observations consistently targeted individual children, one at a time, and occurred at a fixed time of day. During the observation, the method of starting play, type of play, behaviours during the play, verbal and nonverbal communication, and method of ending the play were recorded, as well as examples of play. As a result, 20 observation videos, totalling 432 min in duration, were compiled over four weeks, and the observations were completed when the data began to show recurring patterns (Merriam, 2018). Three out of 16 observed children left school due to health issues or relocation to another city. As a result, interviews were only conducted with 13 children. The one-on-one interviews were conducted by the researcher using the prepared interview form. The interviews, which lasted approximately 10 min on average, were recorded and transcribed onto the interview form. During their interviews, the children were encouraged to verbally express their thoughts about the schoolyard in general. They were also requested to use crayons to create drawings depicting their desired schoolyard on standard-size paper.

Data analysis

The 432 min of observation, along with the 130 min of interview data obtained from the children (n = 16 for the observation process; n = 13 for interviews), were transferred to the Outdoor Play Behaviours Observation Form (Appendix 1) and Child Interview Form (Appendix 2). All qualitative data, including information derived from the collected drawings, underwent comprehensive analysis using content analysis methodology (Merriam, 2018; Patton, 2002), which is a qualitative data analysis process of revealing concepts and relationships by combining, reducing, and interpreting data. Quantitative data were analysed by frequency distribution, a descriptive statistical method. According to Babbie (2020), a frequency distribution summarises the frequency of occurrences of each value or category in a dataset. Frequency distributions are used to organise and present the data clearly. In addition, during the coding process, inductive analysis, which reveals the concepts underlying data along with the relationships between these concepts, was applied (Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2016). According to the Miles-Hubermann model, to verify qualitative findings, the researcher should return to the data and check the codes, and the dataset should also be coded by different coders. Furthermore, the consensus among coders should be at least 80% (Miles & Hubermann, 1994). In the current study, all of the data were coded twice by the researcher and then recoded by two experts who hold master’s degrees in early childhood education. According to the Miles–Huberman intercoder reliability formula (Reliability = consensus/consensus + disagreement), the intercoder reliability of the current study was 86%. As a result, the codes were discussed one by one and then finalised based on the coders’ agreement. The table below shows the codes used in the content analysis and the subthemes and main themes identified through the codes.

Results

The results of the interviews and observation data are presented below according to the research questions.

Children's outdoor play behaviour

The first research question focused on the nature of children’s outdoor play behaviour. The emergence behaviours of preschool children playing outdoors, as stated in Lewin's behavioural equation, were observed to be related to the mutual effect of the person and his or her environment. The first remarkable result shows that children's play behaviours, including starting, initiating, preparing, and sustaining play, as well as accepting or rejecting it, are influenced by both environmental opportunities and individual psychological factors and experiences (Figs. 1, 2, 3, and 4).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Solitary-functional play (B9)

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Parallel-dramatic play (B8), (B2), (B7)

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Cooperative-dramatic play (G1), (G3)

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Spectator behaviour (G5)

Full size image

As shown in Table 3, according to the play structure and type, the children most frequently played solitary-functional play (f = 27) and least frequently played solitary-building play (f = 1). In terms of play type, functional play and dramatic play were the most common, while construction-building play (see Fig. 5) was the least common. In terms of play structure, while the children tended to play mostly alone or together as associative play, they were found to play least often in cooperative play (see Fig. 6). It was also observed that the children displayed other play behaviours.

Table 3 Range of play structures and types
Full size table
Fig. 5
figure 5

Construction-building play (B7), (G5)

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

Cooperative-ruled play (Group)

Full size image

G3: “What shall we play?”

G1: “Let us play motherhood, of course!”

G3: “Let these be our materials.”

B7: “They put logs into the tower. I will do the door."

G5: “I’m pouring sand.”

According to Table 4, it was observed that during play, the children most frequently used structured materials for the materials’ intended purpose (f = 49), while they used unstructured materials least often for the materials’ intended purpose (f = 10). However, out-of-purpose use of materials (f = 6) was not often observed. Importantly, the actual uses of the materials (see Fig. 7) were influenced by the potential behaviours provided by each material; for example, the symbolic use of materials (see Fig. 8) was most often influenced by the meanings that the children attached to those materials throughout their play.

Table 4 Type and usage of play materials
Full size table
Fig. 7
figure 7

Actual use of materials (G4)

Full size image
Fig. 8
figure 8

Symbolic use of materials (Group)

Full size image

B10: “I got it!”

B4: “No, this is an off-limits place, you cannot come here.”

Table 5, which includes the play themes, shows that in children’s play based on physical strength, the most frequent themes were climbing and hanging (f = 8) (see Fig. 9), while hiding (f = 1) was observed least often. Additionally, the most frequent theme of imaginative play was war (f = 6) (see Fig. 10), and the least common theme was making a city of sand (f = 1). While imaginative play mostly revolves around war themes, it primarily involves running and simple movements. The behaviours of leaving and returning to play were affected by interesting changes in the environment, and the physical conditions and weather conditions in the schoolyard affected how the children ended their play.

Table 5 Play themes
Full size table
Fig. 9
figure 9

Climbing and hanging (Group)

Full size image
Fig. 10
figure 10

War game (Group)

Full size image

B10: “Let us blow up this house. Drop the bombs!”

Children's thoughts on the outdoors

The aim of the second research question was to investigate children’s thoughts about the outdoors. When children shared their thoughts about the schoolyard, games and toys came to mind.

‘Play a game. Having fun with my friends’. G2

The children stated that they mostly preferred to play with fixed park apparatuses such as swings, slides, climbing areas, and tree houses.

‘The swing, seesaw, slide, everything, everything in the whole park.’ G4

The children also stated that playing games was based on physical strength, such as running, jumping, climbing, sliding, and playing balls while in the open area of the schoolyard.

‘I climb the ladder, slide down the slide, ride the swing.’ B8

Furthermore, students reported playing imaginative games such as sandboxes, tree houses, and open spaces, which included roles such as motherhood, sorcery, fishing, and making cities out of sand.

‘We are playing motherhood in the sands and making something like a cake.’ G3

‘We build a castle or a hidden continent in the sandbox.’ B4

Some children emphasised that they did not prefer to play in climbing areas, slides, rope balls, tree houses, or sandboxes due to health and safety concerns.

‘(Scared of) home. There are lots of chairs. I’m afraid that I will fall on them.’ B3

‘My mom told me not to go to the sandbox because I have asthma, I am sick.’ G2

Elements that children want to see in outdoor play areas

The third research question investigated which materials/toys the children wanted to see in their schoolyard. It was found that 60- to 69-month-old children were able to express, verbally and through pictures, which materials they wanted to see in the schoolyard, which was in line with their interests and desires, and that they were able to provide a critical approach.

The fixed components that the children wanted to see were slides, swings, trampolines (see Fig. 11), a play kitchen stove (see Fig. 12), a painting area, a climbing area, a football field, and sports equipment.

Fig. 11
figure 11

Trampoline (B7)

Full size image
Fig. 12
figure 12

Play kitchen stove (G3)

Full size image

‘I wish there was a kitchen stove in the front yard.’ G3

The moving components that the children wanted to see were play motorbikes, cars, trucks, buckets, bicycles, balls, cubes, paints, balloons, shovels, books, and marbles (see Figs. 13 and 14).

Fig. 13
figure 13

Easel and crayons (G5)

Full size image
Fig. 14
figure 14

Motorbike and truck (B8)

Full size image

‘The paint thing. Crayons. This pencil. I will paint inside another colour, then it will be a pencil. Ball. Balloon.’ G5

To continue, the types of entertainment areas the children wanted to see were carousel, water slides, bumper cars, ball pools, and coloured lights (see Figs. 15 and 16).

Fig. 15
figure 15

Merry-go-round and colourful lights (G2)

Full size image
Fig. 16
figure 16

Waterslide (B3)

Full size image

‘A giant slide in the garden. The world's largest slide. As I mentioned, the climbing place must be connected to the slide.’ B3

Children commented on live creatures and natural beings. They wanted to see themselves, family members, turtles, rabbits, squirrels (see Fig. 17), trees, flowers, the sun, and clouds.

Fig. 17
figure 17

Animals (B5)

Full size image

‘Tortoise. Rabbit. Squirrel. Turtle.’ B5

According to the findings of the drawings, most children desire simple and complex structured materials in their school gardens. Although children did not mention their actions in their drawings, it is believed that materials such as trampolines and water slides, among the materials they would like to see in the school garden, will reveal individual and functional play. Conversely, kitchen utensils and art materials reveal dramatic play. Furthermore, unstructured materials and natural elements are the most minor common elements in children's drawings. When these findings are compared with those obtained from observation, it can be concluded that children most frequently engage in individual-functional and dramatic play with structured materials in the school garden and desire to play in such ways.

Discussion

Investigating preschool children's play behaviour is important for several reasons, as it contributes to their overall development and well-being (Puddle, 2023). Outdoor play is crucial for nurturing children's holistic development across physical, cognitive, social, and emotional domains, as emphasised by experts and studies. Gray et al. (2015) noted how outdoor play fosters physical activity, enhancing motor skills, balance, coordination, and strength. Additionally, the rich variety of outdoor environments, including climbing structures and natural landscapes, offers engaging experiences (Fjørtoft, 2001). Lehrer and Schauble (2006) and Bergen (2002) emphasised that construction play enhances physical coordination, spatial awareness, and problem-solving while stimulating creativity and innovation (Boden & Packer, 2020). Moore (2014) and Bierman (2004) highlighted that collaborative outdoor play develops essential social skills such as cooperation, communication, and conflict resolution, promoting friendship and empathy. This cooperative play, as Howes et al. (2000) and Fiese et al. (2002) suggest, nurtures sharing, empathy, and emotional regulation. Finally, Isenberg and Quisenberry (2002), and Bodrova and Leong (2007) stated that dramatic play fosters creativity, storytelling, vocabulary expansion, and problem-solving (Berk, 2009; Lillard et al., 2013; Neuman & Dickinson, 2001). In summary, outdoor play in diverse forms is essential for children's holistic development, as highlighted by experts in child development.

Understanding how preschoolers play on playgrounds and how the environment influences play can shape curriculum design and allow educators to tailor learning activities to align with children's interests and developmental needs (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2009; Moore, 2014). This awareness enables diverse play materials and settings that stimulate curiosity and creativity (Göncü, 2019).

Consistent results from observations, interviews, and drawings reveal that children, as autonomous individuals, express their opinions and make informed decisions about their environment. Some studies that consider children's expectations have also emphasised that children are individuals who can make the right decisions about their environment, are aware of their needs, have a democratic perspective, are self-confident and actively participate in the process (Dell, 2018; Kılıç, 2013; Nah & Lee, 2016).

Preparation for play and the effect of the environment

Through observations of children's outdoor play, it became evident that they engaged in play within specific areas, such as treehouses and sandboxes, by adhering to play rules or expressing a desire to join ongoing activities. Conversely, spontaneous play with fixed park components was observed, likely facilitated by their simplicity, allowing functional play without the need for planning, dialogue, or manipulation. Göncü (2019) highlights that children most often take on pretend roles as a means to initiate imaginative play and participate in ongoing imaginative play. The acceptability of the proposed imaginative play is also influenced by play partners' knowledge (Göncü, 2019).

Effect of the environment on the play process

In our setting, we observed that the children engaged most in functional and dramatic play. The type of play varied depending on the schoolyard play area where the play occurred. Play based on physical characteristics was more common than imaginative play. The most frequently played functional plays in the schoolyard were usually played alone. The least common play was building-construction play. Similarly, we also observed that cooperative play was rare. The least frequently observed play type was rule-based play. We noticed that open-ended, unstructured materials such as branches, stones, and soil were used symbolically in the present study. Additionally, structured materials were more frequently used in play.

The prevalence of functional play in open spaces is attributed to the innate physicality of these environments, allowing activities such as running, jumping, swinging, and sliding (Gray et al., 2015; Henniger, 1999). Hirose et al. (2012) highlight that children aged three to five most often favour solitary play in outdoor spaces. Playing equipment that involves repetitive muscle movements and requires minimal planning or interaction can encourage solitary or parallel play. Moreover, spontaneous associative-functional play can emerge within similar play structures, illustrating the dual influence of individual choices and environmental factors on play behaviour. Göncü et al. (2019) emphasise that the types and structures of children's play can vary significantly between different communities.

The lower incidence of construction-building play in the current study, in contrast to Smilansky's (1968) earlier findings, aligns with the observations of McOmber (2006) and Kendrick et al. (2012). This discrepancy may be attributed to the absence of open-ended materials in schoolyards that facilitate manipulation, as suggested by Zamani and Moore (2013). Dramatic play may be more popular than building-construction play because of the intertwined nature of these two types of play. Moreover, the finding that rule-based games are less common coincided with the conclusion of Parten (1971) that playing with rules is rare in the preschool period.

Lewin (1936) states that everything an individual believes to be real can affect their behaviour. Thus, open-ended materials and natural areas create the potential for symbolic uses, and the symbolisation of structured schoolyard play materials provides important clues regarding the areas children need. Ouvry and Furtado (2019) state that everything interesting outdoors invites children to carry out creative play by stimulating their imagination. On the other hand, Flannigan and Dietze (2017) conclude that children do not see natural materials as objects that should be used in a certain way and, as a result, can assign any role to those objects. In addition, the more frequent use of structured materials in play can be explained by the lack of unstructured materials.

Does the environment affect the ending of play?

Children playing outdoors were observed to end play when their interest in the play had decreased, when the play reached its goal, when there was a disturbing or remarkable situation, or due to teacher intervention. Göncü (2019) states that the beginning and end of imaginary play are often not clearly defined, and they can also end abruptly when children decide that they have played long enough. In addition, he added that if children cannot perceive a similarity between their playmates and their own needs or experiences within the imaginary play experience, they may lose interest in the play and end it.

Schoolyard through children's eyes

The children in the current study most often associated schoolyards with play and play materials. The children state that they most often play games based on physical strength on the playground, while imaginary games occur in areas such as tree houses and sandboxes. These children’s statements that they most often play functional play with playground components were in line with the findings of the current study. Even if the objects and living things children did not want to see outdoors differed, their statements about the existing schoolyard were similar. It was shown in the current findings as well as in the related literature that the materials that preschool children wanted to see outdoors tend to be similar. For example, children want open-ended and natural elements such as music boards, picture and story areas, playhouses, game elements containing water, sandboxes or pools, ball areas or pools, poultry and plant growing areas, and play materials such as slides, swings, and seesaws in schoolyards (Aslan, 2010; Kılıç, 2013). Although the play behaviours of children in the same developmental period can differ depending on their environment, the schoolyard play areas and play materials they prefer tend to be similar.

Limitations

There were some limitations in the current study that may have affected the data. For example, the study group was limited to 16 children aged 60–69 months who attended a public kindergarten. This is usual for qualitative research, which is not necessarily meant to be generalised to a larger population and instead is most valuable for characterising a specific group in depth (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2007). Another potential limitation of the current study is that face-to-face education was suspended for an extended period due to COVID-19 pandemic-related shutdowns. Thus, because of the pandemic, the data collection process was limited to only four weeks of observation and interviews. This study, which adopts a qualitative approach, strongly emphasises understanding the context in which the study takes place. This means that the findings are highly context specific. For this reason, the findings are applicable to similar contexts or settings. Future research could extend and expand the data collection period to increase the strength of the results.

Practical implications and future research

Outdoor spaces in early childhood education institutions should be a continuation of indoor spaces, and as a result, it is important to establish learning centres. Importantly, learning centres should be arranged in an open-ended manner, which allows for construction-building and dramatic play types that are expected to be seen during the preschool period and are an essential part of laying the groundwork for cooperative play. Furthermore, one suggestion is to consider approaches that promote creative play in outdoor spaces. For instance, features such as designated areas for storytelling, themed play areas, or materials from nature that can be used as props to enhance imaginative play should be considered. Another area to investigate is why cooperative play is less common in the current setting. This may require analysing the social dynamics and relationships between children and opportunities for cooperative activities within the outdoor area. Future research can address cultural variability, diverse physical settings, and diverse age groups. Finally, the arrangement of the schoolyard play areas should be made according to an interdisciplinary approach that includes the participation of all stakeholders involved, such as the children, teachers, school administration, and parents (Akdemir et al., 2023). Maintaining a balance between structured and unstructured play opportunities in outdoor spaces is important. Although structured materials may be preferred, it is crucial to provide opportunities for open-ended exploration and imaginative play.