Observations from the playground: Common problems and potential solutions for school-based recess

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to examine some common problems observed during school recess and translate findings to evidence-based, practical solutions that can be applied within schools on a more systematic level. Design: Observational study. Setting: Elementary schools in the USA. Method: Data were collected from 112 school recess periods at 25 public elementary schools in three distinct geographical regions of the USA (Midwest, Northwest, Southwest). The Great Recess Framework–Observational Tool (GRF-OT) guided observations and field notes. The GRF-OT measures safety and structure, student behaviour, adult supervision and engagement, transitions, and physical activity. Following data collection, inductive and deductive content analysis examined patterns in the data. Results: Analyses revealed how poorly designed and inadequately maintained schoolyard spaces contribute to common safety issues. A combination of insufficient play space planning and maintenance, lack of play equipment and game availability, and limited adult involvement in the schoolyard reinforced social hierarchies, leading to exclusionary practices. While recess is often deemed a child-led portion of the school-day, results highlighted the important role that adults play in recess. Conclusion: The following evidence-based solutions should be considered by school administrators and policy makers to mitigate problems observed during recess: (1) assess the schoolyard landscape, (2) assess patterns of play, (3) plan an intentional recess and (4) address the social climate. A high-quality recess promotes equitable access to play opportunities.

“All the fun stuff, the teachers say, ‘that’s dangerous!’” Hearing from children on safety and risk in active play in schools: a systematic review

“…Three studies each were conducted in Canada [ 103 – 105 ] and the USA [ 106 – 108 ], and one study in each of Finland [ 109 ], Iceland [ 110 ], Netherlands [ 33 ], Spain [ 111 ], Sweden [ 112 ], and Tanzania [ 113 ]. A total of 15 studies focused on children’s physical activity during recess as the phenomena of interest [ 32 , 33 , 85 , 87 , 90 , 93 , 94 , 97 – 100 , 103 , 104 , 109 , 111 ], while 10 studies were interested in children’s development and play more broadly [ 86 , 88 , 89 , 91 , 92 , 95 , 96 , 101 , 102 , 105 , 107 , 113 ]. The remaining studies covered a range of other disciplines, including, environmental education and health ( n = 2) [ 89 , 110 ], education ( n = 1) [ 108 ], injury prevention ( n = 1) [ 112 ], psychology ( n = 1) [ 106 ], and human geography ( n = 1) [ 88 ].…”

“…Although not consistently reported, a range of study designs and methodologies were employed, including participatory action research ( n = 4) [ 33 , 90 , 106 , 110 ], ethnography ( n = 4) [ 88 , 89 , 91 , 101 ], case study ( n = 3) [ 90 , 93 , 109 ], formative, process, and outcome evaluations ( n = 3) [ 99 , 100 , 108 ], qualitative descriptive ( n = 2) [ 32 , 97 ], explorative ( n = 2) [ 85 , 95 ], phenomenology ( n = 1) [ 87 ], mosaic approach (framework of child-oriented methods) ( n = 1) [ 86 ], observational ( n = 1) [ 107 ], and field study ( n = 1) [ 112 ] designs. Of the 31 studies, 18 employed methods to elicit children’s perceptions and experiences only, while 13 studies employed a mix of playground observation and methods to elicit children’s perspectives.…”

“…The most common method for eliciting children’s perspectives were focus groups ( n = 16), while 17 studies employed visual methods such as photo-elicitation ( n = 8) and drawing ( n = 9). The most common analysis technique was content analysis ( n = 9) [ 32 , 86 , 96 , 100 , 103 , 107 , 109 , 111 , 112 ], followed by thematic analysis ( n = 5) [ 85 , 95 , 99 , 104 , 110 ], ethnographic analysis ( n = 3) [ 88 , 89 , 101 ], and interpretative phenomenological analysis ( n = 1) [ 87 ].…”

The Management of Safety Situations and Assumable Risk during Transitions and Recesses in Different Types of Schools

“…Another significant result was that in rural and subsidized schools, we found non-marked areas of risk, and also, the play areas were not well defined compared to the other types of schools analyzed. We can say, then, that risks existed in subsidized and rural schools, although it is prescriptive to promote the maximum level of safety possible at all times [ 19 , 23 , 28 ].…”

“…), and to the management that can be performed by schools. The design of the space where recess takes place, the maintenance, the availability of equipment, and the participation of adults contribute to the avoidance of safety problems and exclusion practices [ 23 , 24 ]. Likewise, the intervention or not of teachers directly affects the behavioral patterns of children during recess [ 25 , 26 , 27 ].…”