thalitacpamorim@gmail.com

roberto.gimenez@unicid.edu.br

*Education Department on Regional Board of Education in São Paulo

Master in Education at University of São Paulo City (UNICID)

Master in Education, graduated in Physiotherapy and Pedagogy

Specialist in Rehabilitation Applied to Children and specialist

in Special Education with an emphasis on hearing impairment / deafness

Member of the group of studies and pedagogical practices

for the construction of the São Paulo City Curriculum.

**Doctor in Physical Education and Researcher of Post Graduation Program

in Education – University of São Paulo City

Specialist in Inclusive Education, Adapted Physical Activity

Leader of the Group of Studies in Development, Learning

and Inclusion in Basic Education

(Brazil)

Reception: 12/22/2020 - Acceptance: 03/21/2021

1st Review: 02/25/2021 - 2nd Review: 03/04/2021

Accessible document. Law N° 26.653. WCAG 2.0

Suggested reference: Amorim, T.C.P. de, & Gimenez, R. (2021). Playing in Childhood Education: Playground Contexts and the Behavior of a Child with Intellectual Disability. Lecturas: Educación Física y Deportes, 26(276), 20-35. https://doi.org/10.46642/efd.v26i276.2765

 

Abstract

    Some research focused on physical and sensory accessibility in playgrounds bring some evidence that this is a place that should be thought of for all children, in public spaces and schools. However, little is yet discussed about accessibility or strategies for structuring spaces that support the development of children with intellectual disabilities. Among the existing studies there are relatively few studies that seek to observe children in natural conditions, paying attention to the child's spontaneity and without guidance from the researcher. This study aimed to explore the possible impacts of playground use on the behavior of a child with intellectual disabilities. The methodology used corresponded to ethology. For purposes of analysis, establishments, categories, toys and equipment, social interactions and motor skills were used. In general, data analysis suggested a tendency for the child to play alone instead of exploring playground equipment, as well as to perform few manipulative skills, privileging locomotion. These results suggest the need to rethink proposals aimed at early childhood education based on inclusive contexts. It is essential that teachers participate in the planning and structuring of spaces for early childhood education, especially in an inclusive perspective.

    Keywords: Preschool children. Intellectual disability. Playgrounds.

 

Resumo

    Algumas pesquisas voltadas para a acessibilidade física e sensorial em parques infantis trazem evidências de que este é um local que deve ser pensado para todas as crianças, em espaços públicos e escolas. No entanto, pouco ainda se discute sobre acessibilidade ou estratégias de estruturação de espaços de apoio ao desenvolvimento de crianças com deficiência intelectual. Dentre os estudos existentes, são relativamente poucos os trabalhos que buscam observar crianças em condições naturais, atentando para a espontaneidade da criança e sem orientação do pesquisador. Este estudo teve como objetivo explorar os possíveis impactos do uso de playgrounds no comportamento de uma criança com deficiência intelectual. A metodologia utilizada correspondeu à etologia. Para efeito de análise, foram utilizados estabelecimentos, categorias, brinquedos e equipamentos, interações sociais e habilidades motoras. Em geral, a análise dos dados sugeriu uma tendência da criança brincar sozinha em vez de explorar os equipamentos do playground, bem como realizar poucas habilidades manipulativas, privilegiando a locomoção. Esses resultados sugerem a necessidade de repensar propostas voltadas para a educação infantil a partir de contextos inclusivos. É fundamental que os professores participem do planejamento e da estruturação dos espaços de educação infantil, principalmente em uma perspectiva inclusiva.

    Unitermos: Crianças da Educação Infantil. Deficiência intelectual. Área de jogos.

 

Resumen

    Algunas investigaciones centradas en la accesibilidad física y sensorial en los parques infantiles aportan evidencia de que este es un lugar que debe ser pensado para todos los niños, en los espacios públicos y en las escuelas. Sin embargo, aún se discute poco sobre accesibilidad o estrategias para estructurar espacios que apoyen el desarrollo de los niños con discapacidad intelectual. Entre los estudios existentes, son relativamente pocos los trabajos que buscan observar a los niños en condiciones naturales, prestando atención a la espontaneidad del niño y sin la guía del investigador. Este estudio tuvo como objetivo explorar los posibles impactos del uso de parques infantiles en el comportamiento de un niño con discapacidad intelectual. La metodología utilizada correspondió a la etología. Para el análisis se utilizaron establecimientos, categorías, juguetes y equipos, interacciones sociales y habilidades motoras. En general, el análisis de datos sugirió una tendencia del niño a jugar solo en lugar de explorar el equipo del patio de recreo, además de realizar pocas habilidades de manipulación, privilegiando la locomoción. Estos resultados sugieren la necesidad de repensar propuestas dirigidas a la educación infantil desde contextos inclusivos. Es fundamental que los docentes participen en la planificación y estructuración de los espacios de educación infantil, especialmente desde una perspectiva inclusiva.

    Palabras clave: Niños y niñas en edad preescolar. Discapacidad intelectual. Espacio de juegos.

 

Lecturas: Educación Física y Deportes, Vol. 26, Núm. 276, May. (2021)

---

 

Introduction 

 

    The time children spend in playgrounds and outdoor spaces has been significantly decreasing over the decades and is currently at its lowest level ever (Larson, Green, & Cordell, 2011). There are many factors that contribute to this panorama, from the growing urbanization and verticalization of cities to the perception of families about the increase in social violence in large urban centers and a significant increase in the use of media and electronic equipment (McDonough, 2009; Levin, 2013), not to mention the great inequality in access to urban playgrounds that is directly related to the social class and place where the most vulnerable families live. (Rigolon, 2016; Rigolon, Browning, & Shin, 2018)

 

    Due to the impact caused by the decrease in social recreation spaces in large urban centers, associated with the unimaginative design of many recreation facilities provided, research suggests that these places would not support creative and multifunctional use, and also do not take into consideration special needs children in their design causing social and physical damage of several natures (Khrapko, & Kopeva, 2012; Czalczynska-Podolska, 2014). These factors, in addition to the lack of public policies for this specific issue, make schools one of the few spaces in which the right to play in more natural and inclusive places is made possible.

 

    At the same time, we have observed that the idea of disability is a globally evolving concept. Researchers have argued that intellectual disability should be seen as a characteristic of the individual and not what defines him/her (Luckasson, 2002). Distancing from the medical-biological model, which is considered limiting, the contemporary social concept about disability studies how environmental, contextual factors and socio-cultural interactions can influence general child development, including children with intellectual disabilities. Intellectual disability, as it has a more subjective and complex character, is often not benefited by concrete actions and strategies of accessibility for educators. This is one of the reasons why teachers report having greater difficulty in thinking and carrying out educational actions for this specific audience. (Jeanes, & Magee, 2012; Maciver et al., 2019)

 

    In addition to planning, teachers and several other actors actions in this inclusive process (Anaby et al., 2019), the physical context becomes one of the major factors for the experiences that occur in school playgrounds. Nowadays, thinking about inclusive playgrounds goes far beyond simple accessible recreational equipment, since it also involves thinking about physical structure, spatial dimensions, soil characteristics and access to the elements of nature.

 

    Spatial playground characteristics bring benefits in short, medium and long term, including more inclusive and equitable education, given that they potencialize playing according to children’s possibilities (Siu, Wong, & Lam, 2017; Olsen, & Dieser, 2012); furthermore, brings benefits to reduction of childhood obesity and enables a more active lifestyle (Veugelers et al., 2008; Mccarthy, 2017); motor development (Little, & Wyver, 2008). This potential social benefit, not only can be seen in communicative but also in interactional issues. (McClintic, & Petty, 2015; White, 2011)

 

    Free play in childhood territories, in addition to improving brain function, provides opportunities and stimulates the executive function of the brain (Zelazo, Blair, & Willoughby, 2017; Yogman et al., 2018; Watts, Ducan, Clements, & Sarama, 2018). Some Inclusive American Programs (NCLB, 2002; Early Head Start, 1995, Coad, 2020) that valued skills aimed at pre-proficiency or “academic readiness” rather than playful learning found that structured interventions in Early Childhood did not express relevant gains in Elementary Education, demonstrating that Early Childhood Education has its own benefits and peculiarities for childhood (Nicolopoulou, 2010; Makida, & Gimenez, 2016). A recent study even pointed out that children's exposure to recreation, especially during active play, increased levels of self-regulation, which, in turn, led to better results in mathematics and reading, suggesting relationships between free play, recess, self-regulation and achievements, (Becker, Mcclelland, Loprinzi, & Trost, 2014)

 

    It is known that, besides the countless challenging issues that the inclusive school needs to deal with, it is essential to think more relevant and effective school organizations, as well as to embrace learning environments when working with diversity. (Anaby, Campbell, & Missiuna, 2019)

 

    Thus, this study aims to explore the possible impacts that playgrounds have on the behavior of a child with intellectual disabilities.

 

Methods 

 

Subjects of the research 

 

    A group of 28 children took part in the study: 14 boys and 14 girls aged 4 to 5 years old, enrolled in Early Childhood Education (ECE) from a public school located in the capital of the city of São Paulo. The focal child corresponded to an individual with intellectual disabilities in the class. The following criteria were used to select the class:

1. Presence of at least one child with intellectual disability in the class, which we identified for this study as the focal child of the research.

2. Attendance of the focal child for at least six months at school, so that the children already knew each other or would have previous moments of social interaction among them.

3. Elimination criterion for this study was children who had any global developmental disorder (ASD) or any other associated disability, once the aim was to focus on the specificities of the intellectual disability itself. It is known, for example, that about 40% of ASD children present associated intellectual disability, which was not the focus of this study.

Instruments and materials 

 

    For data collection, a Tripod fixed at 1.50 meters in height, a Canon EOS Rebel T5i camera and a Logbook were used for chronological notes on filming days.

 

Research stages 

1. Knowing the school: Previous visit to learn about the space, participation of researchers in a pedagogical meeting to present the objectives of the study to the school team.

2. Selection of the class: for choosing one out of eight classes, the criteria described above were respected (see section 2.1), and we opted for a Pre-School I class, with 4-year-old children.

3. Signature of clarification and free consent term by the guardians: after the selection of the class, a meeting was held with the parents to clarify the research, so they would sign an authorization to participate in the study.

4. Observation: before the filming started, there was an adaptation period, in which researchers followed the class for a week, so that the children could get used to the presence of the researchers in order to reduce their influence during data collection.

5. Recordings: The beginning of the filming was determined by the arrival of the class at the playground, after the initial guidance instructions from the teacher. Data collection was carried out in the school's playground, in the morning period, with two researchers: one moved the tripod with the camera, according to the movement of the focal child, while the other researcher took notes on an observational instrument (on-board notebook) about relevant aspects that happened during or in parallel with the filming.

6. Filming time: Filming took place over a period of one month (September/2019), one per week, on random days. During the observation period, filming was carried out during the moments of free play, and lasted 10 minutes. The option for this duration is based on the average found in studies of this nature (Smith, & Connolly, 1980; Nicolette, & Manoel, 2007; Makida-Dyonísio, & Gimenez, 2016). All of these works were elaborated on the assumptions of ethology. As a criterion for selecting these moments, we considered activities that: 1) would start shortly after arriving at the playground, so we could observe which toy the child would go to first; 2) free play; 3) activities initiated by the child that involved body movements linked to games, play or physical exercise in the space.

7. Logbook: Data was collected by free observation of the focal child with his class during games in the school playground space. The notes were continuously recorded the researchers in a Logbook, to better contextualize the qualitative analysis of the footage and to enrich the discussion.

8. Categories of analysis: For the analysis of the focal child’s play, three categories were pre-established, a priori: Recreational Equipment and Physical Space; Social Interactions; and Motor Activity. The pre-established categories of this work refer to previous studies of the same nature (Smith, & Connolly, 1972; Parten, 1932; Nicollette, & Manoel, 2007), with some adaptations concerning the reality of the space to be studied.

Results 

 

    In addition to analysis using a qualitative-interpretative approach through the notes made by the researchers in the logbook, the data was analyzed using descriptive statistics with non-parametric analysis, seeking to quantify the frequency of occurrences in each category. In order to compare the performance frequency of each activity during the day in the three categories, the Kruskal-Wallis test (Hollander, & Wolfe, 1999) was used. Moreover, when the Kruskal-Wallis test showed a significant difference, Nemenyi test (Hollander, & Wolfe, 1999) was used for multiple comparisons.

 

Recreational equipment and physical space category 

 

    In most observations, the focal child did not interact with any activity or toy 22.70% of the time, i.e., he performed observation of space and his peers. 21.50% of the time, the child interacted with the soil and with elements of nature, and played with recreational equipment 44.20% of the time, as shown in Table 1 below.

 

Toys	N	%
Swing	0	0,00%
Catbed	16	9,30%
Wooden house with bridge	0	0,00%
Climbing with Slide	0	0,00%
Slide	0	0,00%
Seesaw	0	0,00%
Turntable	23	13,40%
Observation	39	22,70%
Others	37	21,50%
Soundpark	25	14,50%
Tire bounce	23	13,40%
Climbing	0	0,00%
Tunnels	9	5,23%

Source: Primary research data.

 

    Table 2 shows the comparison between the frequency with which the child interacted with each recreational equipment. Therefore, it is observed by the p-value <0.05 of Kruskal-Wallis Test, that at least one pair of recreational equipment category presented a significantly different frequency among one of the other toys; however, in post-hoc analysis applying the Nemenyi Test for Multiple Comparison, no significant difference was identified between any of the pairs.

 

Toys	N	Average	P.E.	1st Q.	2nd Q.	3rd Q.	Value-p¹
Cat Bed	5	3,20	1,02	2	4	4	0,041
Spining toy	5	4,60	1,63	2	5	7
Observation	5	7,80	0,58	7	8	9
Others	5	7,40	0,51	7	7	8
Soundpark	5	5,00	1,38	2	5	7
Jump-jump of tires	5	4,60	1,57	3	4	7
Tunnels	5	1,80	1,36	0	0	2

Source: Primary research data.

¹ Kruskal-Wallis; N = 35; df = 6; Chi-Squared = 13,12;

 

Social interactions category 

 

    The following is a comparison between the Social Interaction Category subcategories in the focal child’s play in the playground (Table 3 and 4).

 

Social Interaction	N	Average	P.E	1st Q.	2nd Q.	3rd Q.	Value-p¹
Parallel companions	5	3,60	0,51	3	4	4	0,009
Pair	5	5,00	0,95	4	5	7
Group	5	2,80	0,37	2	3	3
Alone	5	7,20	0,66	7	7	8
Alone with adult	5	3,00	0,45	2	3	4

Source: Primary research data

¹ Kruskal-Wallis

 

	Parallel companions	Pair	Group	Alone
Pair	0,932	-	-	-
Group	0,948	0,534	-	-
Alone	0,250	0,743	0,039	-
Alone with adult	0,982	0,660	1,000	0,068

Source: Primary research data

 

    Results indicate that the child plays alone if we compare with situations: pair, group, alone with adults.

 

Motor Activities Category 

 

    Table 5 shows the comparison between the frequency of each motor activity performed by the child, and the p-value of Kruskal-Wallis test. Therefore, by the p-value presented, it is observed that there was a significant difference between at least one pair of motor activities, with Locomotion (47.50%) showing a higher frequency than Manipulation (21.20%); this is confirmed by the Nemenyi Test for Multiple Comparison (shown in Table 6).

 

Motor Activity	N	Average	P.E	1st Q.	2nd Q	3rd Q.	P-value¹
Stabilization	5	6,20	0,92	4	7	8	0,014
Locomotion	5	9,40	0,87	8	10	10
Manipulation	5	4,20	0,66	4	4	5

Source: Primary research data

¹ Kruskal-Wallis; N = 15; df = 2; Chi-Squared = 8,54;

 

	Stabilization	Locomotion
Locomotion	0,227	-
Manipulation	0,496	0,015

Source: Primary research data

 

Discussion 

 

    The results related to Recreational Equipment and Physical Space Category indicate that having a variety of options at free play moments is essential to provide multiple experiences, since the focal child did not show preference for a type of recreational equipment, as well as did not show greater interaction with their peers in one or the other toy, but explored significantly different spaces and experiences. The focal child’s performing observation activities for part of the time is also highly significant when studies by Thomas, & Harding (2011), that show that the multisensory experience of being in outdoor environments itself encourages children to be more attentive, observant and curious, are taken into account.

 

    It was observed that children with intellectual disabilities tend to play with more elements of nature, to perform observation activities, and to play with more intuitive recreational equipment that constantly explore various sensory experiences, such as exploring the same sound in the soundpark, or performing the same movement on the tire bouncer or rotating the turntable many times, consolidating motor movements and sensations already known. In fact, what is already known by the child and brings references in its associations with what he already knows is a factor that makes him prefer to play longer in a single recreational equipment, i.e., a recognizable, intuitive design that can bring associations with what he already knows, such as a house, car, boat or animal-shaped equipment, helps with games, social communication and role-playing, stimulating creativity and imagination. (Moore, & Lynch, 2015; Prellwitz, & Skär, 2007)

 

    Contact with elements of nature was highly present in the explorations of the researched child, including showing different ways of exploring the soil, leaves and trees, on different days and in different natural contexts. For example, there was rain the day before one of the data collection days, and the soil was still wet. The focal child spent a long time playing with that element, surprised and curious about the texture of the grass and soil. He showed greater interest in playing amidst the natural resources present than with recreational equipment. Studies show that being in the middle of nature brings more beneficial and prominent affective states when walking or even while observing the natural environment, compared to activities performed in built and closed environments. (Kinnafick, & Thogersen-Ntoumani, 2014)

 

    The scores related to Social Interactions category shown in this study revealed that the focal child played more time alone than with his peers in general. Interactions with adults were little performed in this space, demonstrating that this is a place where children with disabilities have the possibility of having their actions less directed by adults and more supported by their peers. (Gresham, & Reschly, 1986; Wang, 2014, Coad 2020)

 

    This makes us reflect on the necessity for pedagogical interventions to facilitate interactions in these play spaces. However, many researchers report that even teachers specializing in special education have difficulty working with social aspects and interactions with children with some type of disability, which includes working with the disabled child and with other children in the class, in collaborative work. These studies suggest that there is greater improvement and training related to the design and implementation of holistic and multimodal school interventions, aiming at the development of social skills of Down syndrome individuals. (Bryant, 2018; Vlachou, Stavroussi, & Didaskalou, 2016)

 

    Playgrounds can be a space for development of multiple social experiences, as they influence more complex communication, dramatization, and problem solving together (Frost, 2004). However, for children with intellectual disabilities, recreational equipment demonstrated limited accessibility and usability, and did not support interaction with peers alone.

 

    These findings corroborate with the studies by Hendy (2001) and Malkusak (2002), which show that only accessible recreational equipment is not enough to promote good moments of interaction and social inclusion; therefore, pedagogical proposals that assist in interaction between peers and a rich environment for diverse explorations are necessary, which will make the so-called environmental accessibility and usability. (Iwarsson, & Stahl, 2003; Carlsson, 2004)

 

    The data show us that, in addition to thinking about appropriate environments for playing that encourage and facilitate interactions between peers, taking into account the universal design, it is necessary to have a good professional training of educators so that pedagogical strategies that foster interactions in this space are made possible, whenever necessary.

 

    It is known that one of the most significant ways in which human beings learn is through movement. Motor development occurs due to a range of factors, including constant and permanent changes in the intrinsic ability to generate motor responses, the task to be performed and the environment in which these individuals develop.

 

    The focal child of this research started at school with several neuromotor delays. The child was still crawling in spaces and started running and making more complex movements in the year the data was collected. Pedagogical reports collected at school point out that the child’s family reports little space for motor exploration in the home environment and that the child sat for a long time in his crib, for long periods, due to the long-hour work demand from his parents.

 

    The environment is understood as one of the factors that most significantly interfere in human motor development. Recent research indicates that, even in intrauterine space, the environment offered to the child may interfere with cognitive and motor issues in his future. Studies by Murcia, Campbell, & Aranda (2018) suggest that cases of pre and postpartum depression, high levels of anxiety and stress in mothers influence the motor development of infants.

 

    Therefore, when assessing individuals’ motor activity, it is necessary to observe the many given possibilities, which go beyond the subject itself, embracing the analysis of the context in which they live, the conditions given and the interactive processes that influence development at certain periods. This concept, simplified by the equation D = ƒ (PE), embodies that human development is the result of continuous action between the individual and his environment. (UNDP, 2013; Bronfenbrenner, 1995)

 

    It was observed that quantity, availability and physical accessibility of recreational equipment alone did not guarantee the focal child would explore his motor skills in a wide and diversified way, which also implies considering intrinsic factors of personal motivation and interest, in addition to external situations in which the favorite toy is “in dispute” with other colleagues, or even factors in which the child needs a more complex or specialized motor development to enable him to make “conventional” use of a climbing toy, for example. However, using unconventional and traditional forms is part of childhood and even helps in the development of cognitive and motor functions.

 

    Many authors have even studied the acquired benefits in higher elementary functions, mainly in the executive function, arising from diversified physical activities in school-age children (Tomporowski, 2003; Hillman, Castelli, & Buck 2005). Therefore, the possibility to explore the physical space in an independent and variable way, in large and significant childhood territories, helps in general locomotor skills development and improvement, in addition to fine motor skills (Little, & Wyver, 2008; Thomas, & Harding, 2011) that will be important for children’s autonomy throughout life.

 

Conclusion 

 

    Research has shown that playing in children with intellectual disabilities in the playground is a potent tool for developing their power of choice and autonomy, without the constant presence of an adult. The interactions that occurred were mostly with their peers, in pairs or small groups. We observed that, there was no preferential recreational equipment, but that several toys were used by the focal child, in addition to the elements of nature and sensory spaces created by the teachers.

 

    Nature and the use we make of it, thus, bring significant benefits for social and motor development, in addition to favoring the child’s well-being. In this sense, our concept of playground should not be limited only to traditional recreational equipment, but to developing childhood territories that make learning between peers, the power of choice in their games and the exploration of nature and their own body movements possible.

 

    From this data, new studies can seek to bring contributions to teaching strategies towards children with intellectual disabilities in external spaces and to elaborating and structuring richer territories for learning among peers and exploring external as well as natural territory to provide more creative and new ways of playing. We know that this is one of the main objectives of early childhood schools: to provide environments that imply greater interaction and provide rich possibilities for diversified experiences, which have proven to assist in social, cognitive, physical and self-regulation development of children with and without disabilities.

 

    Future studies may serve the purpose of comparing the behavior of children with disabilities with typical ones in front of other school spaces. It is also understood that teachers and caregivers should participate more effectively in the planning process of spaces used by early childhood education.

 

    Acknowledgements: CAPES for the scholarship grant to the development of research.

 

References 

 

Anaby, D.R., Campbell, W.N., Missiuna, C., Shaw, S.R., Bennett, S., & Khan, S. (2019). Recommended practices to organize and deliver school-based services for children with disabilities: a scoping review. Child Care Health and Development, 45(1), 15-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12621

 

Barkley, R. A., & Murphy, K. R. (2006). Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A clinical workbook (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.

 

Becker, D.R., McClelland, M.M., Loprinzi, P., & Trost, S.G. (2014). Physical activity, self-regulation, and early academic achievement in preschool children. Early Education & Development, 25(1), 56-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2013.780505

 

Bierman, KL, Domitrovich, CE, Nix, RL, Gest, SD, Welsh, JA, & Greenberg, MT (2008). Promoting academic and social-emotional school readiness: The Head Start REDI program Child Development, 18(1), 1802-1817. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01227.x

 

Braungart, M., & McDonough W. (2002). Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. North Point Press.

 

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). Developmental ecology through space and time: A future perspective. In P. Moen, G.H. Elder, Jr., & K. Lüscher (Eds.). Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecology of human development. 619–647. American Psychological Association.

 

Bryant, J.P. (2018). A phenomenological study of preschool teachers’ experiences and perspectives on inclusion practices. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1549005

 

Carlsson, G. (2004). Travelling by urban public transport: exploration of usability problems in a travel chain perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 11(2), 78-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/11038120410020548

 

Coad, J., Harding, S., Hambly, H., Parker, N., Morgan, L., Marshall, J., & Roulstone, S. (2020). Perspectives of preschool children in England with speech and language needs in the development of evidence-based activities. Child Care Health Development, 46, 283–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12746

 

Czalczynska-Podolska, M. (2014). The impact of playground spatial features on children's play and activity forms: An evaluation of contemporary playgrounds' play and social value. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 132-142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.01.006

 

Frost, J.L. (2004). How adults enhance or mess up children's play. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 158(1), 16-16.

 

Gresham, F.M., & Reschly, D.J. (1986). Social skill deficits and low peer acceptance of mainstreamed learning disabled children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 9(1), 23-32. https://doi.org/10.2307/1510398

 

Hendy T. (2001). The Americans with Disability Act ensures the right of every child to play. Parks and Recreation, 4, 108-117.

 

Hillman, C.H., Castelli, D.M., & Buck, S.M. (2005). Aerobic fitness and neurocognitive function in healthy preadolescent children. Medicine & Science in Sports & exercise, 37(11), 1967-1974. https://doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0000176680.79702.ce

 

Hollander, M., Wolfe, D. A., & Chicken, E. (1999). Nonparametric statistical methods, v. 751. John Wiley & Sons.

 

Iwarsson, S., & Ståhl, A. (2003). Accessibility, usability and universal design—positioning and definition of concepts describing person-environment relationships. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25(2), 57-66. https://doi.org/10.1080/dre.25.2.57.66

 

Jeanes, R., & Magee, J. (2012). ‘Can we play on the swings and roundabouts?’: creating inclusive play spaces for disabled young people and their families. Leisure Studies, 31(2), 193-210. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2011.589864

 

Khrapko, O. & Kopeva, А. (eds.) (2012). Landscaping of school yard. Publishing House of Primorsky Regional Institute of Educational Development.

 

Kinnafick, F.E., & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2014). The effect of the physical environment and levels of activity on affective states. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 241-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.02.007

 

Larson, L.R., Green, G.T., & Cordell, H.K. (2011). Children’s time outdoors: Results and implications of the National Kids Survey. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 29, 1–20. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258272055

 

Levin, D.E. (2013). Beyond remote-controlled childhood: Teaching young children in the media age. National Association for the Education of Young Children.

 

Little, H., & Wyver, S. (2008). Outdoor play: Does avoiding the risks reduce the benefits? Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 33(2), 33-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/183693910803300206

 

Luckasson, R., Borthwick-Duffy, S., Buntinx, WHE, Coulter, DL, & Craig, EM, Reeve, A., Schalock, RL, Snell, ME, Spitalnik, DM, Spreat, S., Tassé, MJ, The AAMR AD HOC Committee on Terminology and Classification (2002). Mental retardation: Definition, classification, and systems of supports (10th ed.). American Association on Mental Retardation.

 

Maciver, D., Rutherford, M., Arakelyan, S., Kramer, JM, Richmond, J., Todorova, L., O’Hare, A. (2019). Participation of children with disabilities in school: A realist systematic review of psychosocial and environmental factors. Plos One, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210511

 

Makida-Dyonisio, C., Martins, I.C., Gimenez, R. (2016). Inclusão escolar: uma reflexão sobre a transição da educação infantil para o ensino fundamental. Comunicações, 23(2), 207-224. http://doi.org/10.15600/2238-121X/

 

Malkusak T. (2002). Turning accessible playgrounds into fully integrated playgrounds: just add a little essence. Parks and Recreation, 37(4), 66-71.

 

McCarthy, S.M., Hughey, S.M., & Kaczynski, A.T. (2017). Examining sociodemographic in playground availability and quality and associations with childhood obesity. Childhood Obesity, 13(4), 324-331. https://doi.org/10.1089/chi.2016.0239

 

McClintic, S., & Petty, K. (2015). Exploring early childhood teachers’ beliefs and practices about preschool outdoor play: A qualitative study. Journal of Early Childhood teacher education, 36(1), 24-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2014.997844

 

Moore, A., & Lynch, H. (2015). Accessibility and usability of playground environments for children under 12: A scoping review. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 22(5), 331-344. https://doi.org/10.3109/11038128.2015.1049549

 

Murcia, K., Campbell, C., & Aranda, G. (2018). Trends in early childhood education practice and professional learning with digital technologies. Pedagogika, 68(3), 249-264. https://doi.org/10.14712/23362189.2018.8

 

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB, 2002). Publiclaw 107-110-January 8, 2002. Washington, DC: 107th Congress.

 

Nicolette, G., & Manoel, E.J. (2007). Inventário de ações motoras de crianças no playground. Journal of Physical Education, 18(1), 17-26. https://doi.org/10.4025/reveducfisv18n1p17-26

 

Nicolopoulou, A. (2010). The alarming disappearance of play from early childhood education. Human development, 53(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1159/000268135

 

Olsen, H.M., & Dieser, R.B. (2012). “I am hoping you can point me in the right direction regarding playground accessibility”: a case study of a community which lacked social policy toward playground accessibility. World Leisure Journal, 54(3), 269-279. https://doi.org/10.1080/04419057.2012.702456

 

Parten, M.B. (1932). Social Participation among Preschool Children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 27(3), 243–269. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0074524

 

Prellwitz, M., & Skär, L. (2007). Usability of playgrounds for children with different abilities. Occupational Therapy International, 14(3), 144-155. https://doi.org/10.1002/oti.230

 

Rigolon, A. (2016). A complex landscape of inequity in access to urban parks: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 153, 160-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.017

 

Rigolon, A., Browning, M.H., Lee, K., & Shin, S. (2018). Access to urban green space in cities of the Global South: A systematic literature review. Urban Science, 2(3), 67. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci2030067

 

Siu, K.W.M., Wong, Y.L., & Lam, M.S. (2017). Inclusive play in urban cities: a pilot study of the inclusive playgrounds in Hong Kong. Procedia engineering, 198, 169-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.07.080

 

Smith, P. K., & Connolly, K. (1972). Patterns of play and social interaction in preschool children. Ethological studies of child behaviour, 65-95.

 

Smith, P.K., Connolly, K.J., & Connolly, K.J. (1980). The ecology of preschool behaviour. Cambridge University Press.

 

Thomas, F., & Harding, S. (2011). The role of play: Play outdoors as the medium and mechanism for well-being, learning and development. In J. White (Ed.). Outdoor provision in the early years (p. 12-22). Sage.

 

Tomporowski, P.D. (2003). Effects of acute bouts of exercise on cognition. Acta Psychologica, 112(3), 297-324. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0001-6918(02)00134-8

 

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) (2013). Human Development Report 2013. UNDP.

 

Veugelers, P., Sithole, F., Zhang, S., & Muhajarine, N. (2008). Neighborhood characteristics in relation to diet, physical activity and overweight of Canadian children. International Journal of Pediatric Obesity, 3(3), 152-159. https://doi.org/10.1080/17477160801970278

 

Vlachou, A., Stavroussi, P., & Didaskalou, E. (2016). Special teachers’ educational responses in supporting students with special educational needs (SEN) in the domain of social skills development. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 63(1), 79-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2015.1111305

 

Wang, M.V., Lekhal, R., Aaro, L.E., & Schjolberg, S. (2014). Co-occurring development of early childhood communication and motor skills: Results from a population-based longitudinal study. Child: Care, Health and Development, 40(1), 77-84. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12003

 

Watts, T.W., Duncan, G.J., Clements, D.H., & Sarama, J. (2018). What is the long-run impact of learning mathematics during preschool? Child development, 89(2), 539-555. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12713.

 

White, J. (2011). Capturing the difference: The special nature of the outdoors. Outdoor provision in the early years, 45-56. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2016.1251793

 

Yogman, M., Garner, A., Hutchinson, J., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R.M., & Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health (2018). The power of play: A pediatric role in enhancing development in young children. Pediatrics, 142(3), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-2058

 

Zelazo, P.D., Blair, C.B., & Willoughby, M.T. (2017). Executive Function: Implications for Education. NCER 2017-2000. National Center for Education Research. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED570880

Lecturas: Educación Física y Deportes, Vol. 26, Núm. 276, May. (2021)