Developing children’s agency through outdoor learning: A close-to-practice inquiry

This article has been published as part of the Rethinking Curriculum project, kindly funded by The Helen Hamlyn Trust.

Roanne Torr, Classroom Teacher, Dalesthorth Primary School

Rebekah Gear, Senior Lecturer, Nottingham Trent University

Introduction

Working within an Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) unit in a primary school in the Ashfield district, we became increasingly aware of a tension between what we believed outdoor learning could offer children and what they were actually experiencing. Although the outdoor environment is often described as a space for freedom, exploration and autonomy, we noticed that children’s choices were subtly shaped by adult routines, risk‑averse language and the physical organisation of the space. This raised an important question for us: how do young children experience agency outdoors, and how might our pedagogical decisions enable or constrain it?

This question felt particularly urgent given the shifting policy landscape. While frameworks such as ‘Birth to 5 matters’ (Early Education, 2021) foreground children’s agency as central to high‑quality provision, recent revisions to the EYFS framework (DfEDepartment for Education - a ministerial department responsible for children’s services and education in England, 2024) and ‘Development matters’ (DfE, 2023) make no explicit reference to agency at all. This absence risks narrowing practice and overlooking children’s rights to influence their environment and make meaningful choices.

Drawing on sociocultural perspectives (Vygotsky, 1978; Smidt, 2009), ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) and the Reggio Emilia view of children as protagonists in their own learning (Edwards et al., 2012), we wanted to understand how children navigated our outdoor space and how adult discourse around risk shaped their engagement. Close‑to‑Practice (CtP) research offered an ideal methodological approach. As BERA (2018) and Taylor et al. (2014) argue, CtP research values practitioner expertise and creates a ‘third space’ where academic and practitioner knowledge can be co‑constructed. Working collaboratively as a university lecturer and early years practitioner enabled us to explore this question rigorously while keeping children’s lived experiences at the centre.

Curriculum and pedagogical approach

Why this intervention?

We introduced a child‑led action research project to explore children’s experiences of agency outdoors. Our aim was twofold:

• to understand how children perceived and used different areas of the outdoor environment;
• to identify how adult language, routines and risk management practices influenced their choices.

This approach aligned with the mosaic methodology (Clark, 2017), which positions children as active contributors to research through multimodal expression. It is also reflected in Gonzalez et al.’s (2005) funds of knowledge framework, recognising children’s home experiences and cultural knowledge as valuable resources that shape their engagement.

What the intervention involved

The project took place over two action research cycles across six months. Each cycle followed the same structure:

1. Naturalistic observations of children’s outdoor play, focusing on how they navigated different areas (e.g., mud kitchen, construction, water, role play).
2. Child‑led photography, where children used iPads to capture areas they liked or disliked.
3. Semi‑structured focus groups, using symbols to support understanding, where children explained their photographs.
4. Collaborative analysis, where we worked with university colleagues to identify themes.
5. Changes to practice, implemented between cycles in response to children’s feedback.

Six children (three Nursery, three Reception) participated in the photography and focus groups, selected through purposive sampling (Silverman, 2005) to reflect a range of developmental stages.

How we evaluated the approach

Data included:

• field notes from observations
• children’s photographs
• transcripts of focus groups
• reflective journalling
• collaborative thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006)

This triangulation strengthened the validityIn assessment, the degree to which a particular assessment measures what it is intended to measure, and the extent to which proposed interpretations and uses are justified of the findings (Denscombe, 2017; Cohen et al., 2018) and ensured children’s voices remained central.

The study had several limitations. As a small‑scale, context‑specific inquiry, the findings cannot be generalised beyond the immediate setting. In addition, time constraints restricted the extent to which the environment could be redesigned between cycles, limiting opportunities to test more substantial changes. Nonetheless, the approach yielded rich insights into children’s lived experiences of agency.

Findings and implications

Cycle 1: Adult presence as a catalyst for engagement

Observations revealed that children were more likely to engage with an area when an adult was present. This echoed Vygotsky’s (1978) view that learning and agency are mediated through social interaction. Children frequently replicated adult roles (e.g., playing families, construction workers, or drivers), suggesting that familiar cultural scripts supported their confidence.

However, areas perceived as ‘messy’ or ‘risky’, such as the mud kitchen or large slide, were used less frequently. Children’s photographs reinforced this pattern: they consistently chose the playhouse, garage and mark‑making areas as ‘liked’, while avoiding spaces associated with dirt, water or physical challenge.

This made us question about the ways adult language around risk directly shapes children’s agency in outdoor environments. Everyday phrases such as “be careful”, “don’t get wet”, or “that’s too high” may influence how children come to understand for themselves what feels safe, risky, or worth exploring.

Changes implemented between cycles

In response, we:

• reorganised the mud kitchen to make resources more accessible
• introduced clearer boundaries for water play to reduce adult anxiety
• added open‑ended materials to encourage experimentation
• reviewed our language, aiming to shift from risk‑avoidance to risk‑support (Clark, 2017)

Cycle 2: Increased confidence and broader engagement

The second cycle showed notable shifts:

• Children used a wider range of areas, including those previously avoided.
• They demonstrated greater willingness to take manageable risks.
• Their photographs reflected more diverse interests, including natural materials and construction.
• Focus group discussions showed increased confidence in articulating preferences.

These changes suggest that relatively small adjustments, particularly to adult language and resource accessibility, can significantly influence children’s sense of agency.

Implications for practice

Our findings point to several practical implications for early years settings seeking to strengthen children’s agency in meaningful, developmentally authentic ways. Together, they highlight how everyday interactions, language choices and environmental decisions can either constrain or expand children’s opportunities to act with confidence, curiosity, and autonomy.

• Agency is relational, not individual.
  Children’s choices were shaped by adult presence, routines and discourse. Agency flourished when adults adopted a responsive, co‑learning stance.
• Risk‑supportive language matters.
  Shifting from ‘don’t’ language to open, reflective prompts (‘What do you think will happen if…?’) encouraged children to assess risk themselves.
• Outdoor environments are not neutral.
  Decisions about layout, resources and access communicated powerful messages about what was valued.
• Children’s voices can drive meaningful change.
  Photo‑elicitation enabled even very young children to express nuanced preferences that directly shaped practice.

Recommendations for practitioners

Based on this inquiry, we would offer the following recommendations to colleagues exploring agency and outdoor learning:

• Use multimodal methods to listen to children
  Child‑led photography, drawing or mapping can reveal insights that verbal discussion alone may miss.
• Audit your outdoor environment through an agency lens
  Ask: Which areas invite choice? Which restrict it? Whose needs are prioritised—children’s or adults?
• Reflect on your language around risk
  Replace prohibitive phrases with prompts that support children to think, assess and decide.
• Co‑construct changes with children
  Even small adjustments—moving resources, adding open‑ended materials—can significantly shift engagement.
• Work collaboratively
  Partnering with colleagues or external researchers can create a reflective ‘third space’ that deepens understanding and challenges assumptions.
• Document the journey
  Reflective journalling helped us to notice patterns in our own practice and remain accountable to children’s voices.

Applying theory to practice: The Outdoors Agency Toolkit

The following toolkit emerged directly from the iterative cycles of this close-to-practice inquiry. Each phase of observation, child-led photography, focus group discussion and collaborative analysis generated insights that were distilled into a set of practical, adaptable prompts. Rather than offering a prescriptive checklist, the toolkit reflects the principles that consistently supported children’s agency throughout the project: responsive adult interactions, risk-supportive language, accessible environments and meaningful participation in decision-making. Its design is therefore grounded in children’s lived experiences and shaped by the small but significant changes trialled between cycles.

In practice, the toolkit can be used by early years settings and practitioners as a reflective lens through which to examine how agency is enabled, or unintentionally constrained, within their outdoor provision. Practitioners might use it to review the messages communicated by their environment, evaluate the impact of their language around risk, or plan opportunities for children to influence routines and resourcing. As a flexible rather than fixed resource, the toolkit can be revisited over time, supporting ongoing dialogue, collaborative reflection and the development of a culture in which children’s voices actively shape practice.

Access our toolkit, for free, here:

References

• BERA (2018) Close to Practice Educational Research: A BERA Statement. London: British Educational Research Association. Available at: bera.ac.uk/publication/bera-statement-on-close-to-practice-research (bera.ac.uk in Bing) (Accessed: 24 February 2026).
• Braun V and Clarke V (2006) ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative ResearchQualitative research usually emphasises words rather than quantification in the collection and analysis of data. in Psychology, 3(2), pp. 77–101.
• Bronfenbrenner U (1979) The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Clark A (2017) Listening to Young Children: The Mosaic Approach. London: National Children’s Bureau.
• Cohen L, Manion L and Morrison K (2018) Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge.
• Denscombe M (2017) The Good Research Guide for Small-Scale Social Research Projects. London: Open University Press.
• Department for EducationThe ministerial department responsible for children’s services and education in England (2023) Development Matters. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/development-matters–2 (Accessed: 24 February 2026).
• Department for Education (2024) Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage: Setting the Standards for Learning, Development and Care for Children from Birth to Five. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/early-years-foundation-stage-framework–2 (Accessed: 24 February 2026).
• Early Education (2021) Birth to 5 Matters: Guidance for the Early Years Foundation Stage. Available at: https://birthto5matters.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Birthto5Matters-download.pdf (Accessed: 24 February 2026).
• Edwards C, Gandini L and Forman G (2012) The Hundred Languages of Children. Santa Barbara: Praeger.
• Gonzalez N, Moll L C and Amanti C (2005) Funds of Knowledge: Theorizing Practice in Households, Communities, and Classrooms. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Silverman D (2005) Doing Qualitative Research. 2nd edn. London: SAGE Publications.
• Smidt S (2009) Introducing Vygotsky: A Guide for Practitioners and Students in the Early Years. London: Routledge.
• Taylor C, Klein E and Abrams L (2014) ‘Tensions of reimagining our roles as teacher educators in a third space’, Teaching Education, 25(4), pp. 1–17.
• Vygotsky L.S (1978) Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.