Physical activity and play are fundamental to child health, wellbeing, and development. Yet, children’s physical activity levels are low, and their play outdoors has declined across many countries. Compelling research suggests this is in part due to growing risk aversion and concerns for children’s safety, and consequently, more adult control and supervision of children’s activities. Children often seek adventurous and thrilling experiences when they play, described as ‘risky play’, which by its nature involves uncertainty of outcome and a possibility of physical injury. Importantly, a child’s risk-taking in play is progressive and commensurate with their developmental stage, skill level, and temperament. Risky play does not mean letting children play in unsafe places or without age-appropriate supervision. Engaging in risky play fosters confidence, motor competence and risk management skills, is theorised to have an adaptive role in emotional regulation and is associated with better mental health. However, risk is also synonymous with danger and harm in modern societies. The complexity of risk creates a tension for settings such as schools, between their legal and moral duty to keep children safe and a growing body of literature on the detrimental effect for children’s development and wellbeing of restricting their play opportunities. Knowledge is lacking on the underlying beliefs and attitudes that shape responses to risk in children’s physically active play, particularly how differing perspectives between children, parents, teachers, school leaders and policy actors intersect, and how these forces play out in schools. Furthermore, theory has yet to be applied to these research issues, indicating a theoretical gap in the field. This research, therefore, examined the social, cultural, and institutional factors that shape the understanding and influence of ‘risk’ in children’s active physical play in schools, using a multilayered theoretical framework. The thesis is comprised of three studies. Research commenced with a framework synthesis of qualitative literature to examine how adult and child perceptions of safety and risk shape children’s affordances for active physical play during recess/breaktime in primary/elementary and middle school (study one). Guided by the socio-ecological model and theory of affordances, a conceptual framework was developed for factors that afford or constrain children’s physically active play in schools, together with the types of risky play children desire, and a novel model for fostering risk tolerance towards play in schools. Findings show children want more thrilling and adventurous play.experiences; however, several intersecting socio-cultural factors limit the ability of schools to support this. Constraining factors stem from fears for children’s physical safety, and fear of blame and liability in the event of playground injury, which shapes parent, school staff and institutional responses to risk. Parent attitudes and policy barriers were identified as influential factors requiring greater understanding. Consequently, two further studies were conducted to investigate these determinants further. In study two, a cross-sectional online survey with 645 parents of primary school-aged children in Australia, investigated the relationship between parent attitudes to risk and injury, and their child’s daily physical activity and play. Results showed that most parents recognise the benefits for their children of risk engagement but 78% of Australian parents had low tolerance of risk when presented with specific play scenarios, and attitudes towards injuries varied, with mothers more concerned than fathers. Children with parents who were risk averse had less adventurous play and were almost three times less likely to meet the moderate-to-vigorous physical activity guideline of ≥60 minutes daily. Younger children engaged in more play and physical activity, however, more positive parent attitudes to risk and injury appeared to moderate age-related influences. In study three, a theory-informed multi-method qualitative case study was conducted to investigate education policy actor (n=30) perspectives on risk and children’s physically activeplay in schools. Data were collected through interviews, photo-elicitation, and policy document mapping. Data analysis for study three was conducted in two parts. In part (a) a framing analysis examined how education policy actors interpret, portray and contest risk in children’s active physical play in schools. Four frames of play were identified. Two ‘risk averse’ frames (protection and productivity) dominated in schools and were characterised by a negative construction of risk and concerns for adverse outcomes for children and schools. In contrast, two frames were ‘risk tolerant’ (development and flourishing) and were characterised by a neutral construction of risk, which could lead to positive or negative outcomes in play, and supported a child’s holistic learning, development, and wellbeing. Findings suggest school policies that prioritise injury prevention and productivity goals, may involve a risk-benefit trade-off over other fundamental objectives, elevating some risks above less visible and immediate ones, such as the consequences of play restriction.experiences; however, several intersecting socio-cultural factors limit the ability of schools to support this. Constraining factors stem from fears for children’s physical safety, and fear of blame and liability in the event of playground injury, which shapes parent, school staff and institutional responses to risk. Parent attitudes and policy barriers were identified as influential factors requiring greater understanding. Consequently, two further studies were conducted to investigate these determinants further. In study two, a cross-sectional online survey with 645 parents of primary school-aged children in Australia, investigated the relationship between parent attitudes to risk and injury, and their child’s daily physical activity and play. Results showed that most parents recognise the benefits for their children of risk engagement but 78% of Australian parents had low tolerance of risk when presented with specific play scenarios, and attitudes towards injuries varied, with mothers more concerned than fathers. Children with parents who were risk averse had less adventurous play and were almost three times less likely to meet the moderate-to-vigorous physical activity guideline of ≥60 minutes daily. Younger children engaged in more play and physical activity, however, more positive parent attitudes to risk and injury appeared to moderate age-related influences. In study three, a theory-informed multi-method qualitative case study was conducted to investigate education policy actor (n=30) perspectives on risk and children’s physically activeplay in schools. Data were collected through interviews, photo-elicitation, and policy document mapping. Data analysis for study three was conducted in two parts. In part (a) a framing analysis examined how education policy actors interpret, portray and contest risk in children’s active physical play in schools. Four frames of play were identified. Two ‘risk averse’ frames (protection and productivity) dominated in schools and were characterised by a negative construction of risk and concerns for adverse outcomes for children and schools. In contrast, two frames were ‘risk tolerant’ (development and flourishing) and were characterised by a neutral construction of risk, which could lead to positive or negative outcomes in play, and supported a child’s holistic learning, development, and wellbeing. Findings suggest school policies that prioritise injury prevention and productivity goals, may involve a risk-benefit trade-off over other fundamental objectives, elevating some risks above less visible and immediate ones, such as the consequences of play restriction.
| Date of Award | Aug 2024 |
|---|
| Original language | English |
|---|
| Awarding Institution | - Coventry University
- Deakin University
|
|---|
| Supervisor | Lisa Barnett (Supervisor), Natalie Lander (Supervisor), Emma Eyre (Supervisor) & Michael Duncan (Supervisor) |
|---|