A Systematic Review of Research into the Impact of Loose Parts Play on Children’s Cognitive, Social and Emotional Development

Abstract

Loose parts play (LPP) interventions introduce moveable materials and equipment to children’s play spaces to facilitate unstructured, child-led play. Meta-analysis of previous school-based research has shown significant benefits of LPP for physical activity. In the current paper, we review the scope and quality of the quantitative evidence relating to cognitive, social and emotional outcomes. We conducted a systematic search of the literature on LPP interventions for primary school-aged children which used quantitative outcome indicators for cognitive, social and/or emotional development. Studies were screened for inclusion by two independent researchers and reviewed for content, relevant outcomes and quality indicators. Five studies met the review inclusion criteria. Two studies used a randomised controlled trial design, two studies used quasi-experimental design, and one used an observational design. Outcomes measured focused mainly on social development. With the exception of enjoyment, school satisfaction and self-esteem, emotional outcomes were almost entirely absent. No measures of cognitive or academic outcomes were found. For the studies using control groups, few differences between groups were reported, although one study found increased happiness at school and increased odds of reporting being pushed/shoved at playtime associated with intervention. Null results were found for peer acceptance, relational bullying, social competence, social skills, peer group size and psychosocial quality of life. In the non-controlled study, there were observed increases in co-operative play. There is insufficient high-quality, quantitative, empirical evidence available to determine whether or not LPP interventions have an impact on children’s cognitive, social and emotional development. We conclude our review with some recommendations which we hope will assist future research in this promising field.

Do Tangible User Interfaces promote social behaviour during free play? A comparison of autistic and typically-developing children playing with passive and digital construction toys

“…With reference to modern conceptualisations of a ordance (Pozzi et al, 2016), practitioners may consider the 'pre-conditions' of social engagement during play, not only in terms of preordained activities, but in the thoughtful provision of digital objects that may lend themselves to social play. This may enable children to access the creative bene ts of freely determined object manipulation, which has been putatively associated with social and emotional well-being (Gibson, Cornell, & Gill, 2017). Additionally, our study provides further support that digital technology provided to groups of peers may facilitate important peer relationships between autistic classmates (Holt & Yuill, 2014).…”

“…The present study investigates a play scenario that combines both free play and construction toys. Free play with peers is thought to be a particularly stimulating context for children's social development of skills for collaboration, co-operation and negotiation (Gibson, Hussain, Holsgrove, Adams, & Green, 2011;Gibson, Cornell, & Gill, 2017). We use the term 'free play' here to denote play that has not been directed by adults, for example the scenario mentioned above where children built models from a template card (Farr, Yuill, & Ra e, 2010).…”

Outdoor Recreation within the School Setting: A Physiological and Psychological Exploration

“…There are many reports from teachers to indicate that children's play is more cooperative and more inclusive when loose parts are introduced [76,102]. A recent systematic review of loose parts play interventions found that high quality studies have not demonstrated significant changes in children's social competence and social skills [103]. One of the issues is that children in these studies may already be functioning well in terms of social competence and social skills [104].…”

The Influence of a Recess Intervention on Children’s Sense of Belonging and Enjoyment

“…The Recess Project was designed with a simple underpinning philosophy: that with more options for equipment and play materials and more scaffolded opportunities for socialization, children are more likely to enjoy recess and experience associated benefits (Hyndman, Benson, Ullah, & Telford, 2014;McNamara et al, 2014;London et al, 2015). However, only a small number of studies (Baines & Blatchford, 2010;Gibson et al, 2017;Heravi, Gibson, Hailes, & Skuse, 2018;McNamara et al, 2014;McNamara, 2013) have examined what children needed during recess and assessed the ways in which this setting can be modified to make it more beneficial for them. Moreover, there is currently a lack of research that examines the predictors for recess enjoyment, which, we hypothesize, is a prerequisite for enabling children to make the most of the informal learning opportunities and play.…”

“…Indeed, the World Health Organization (1997) encouraged schools to pay closer attention to students' happiness, social connectedness, and autonomy, as each contributes to various health benefits. Recess is an important step to achieving this, however, there is little in the scholarly literature that views recess as a unit of analysis for study and more research is necessary to understand the ways in which the organizational factors and sociocultural context might promote or impede an environment that supports playful, meaningful and enjoyable social interaction (Gibson, Cornell, & Gill, 2017;McNamara et al, 2015).…”