Background - International Council for Children's Play

Arne Trageton
Stord/Haugesund College
5409 Stord
NORWAY
E-mail: arne.trageton@hsh.no
Planning the playground. Hut building in grade 1 and 2
Background
In Norwegian culture out door activities have had a high status. We have a long tradition in
out-door sport activities and play for children. However, in recent years children in Norway
have spent more and more time indoors. The play possibilities outside in forests, in open
fields and so on are strongly reduced; children are spending more time in front of TV, video,
radio and computers at home. The school now expands the time for the 6-10-year olds; the
tendency to indoor life can be strengthened also in school. The lowering of the school start to
6 year gave us a new curriculum in 1997 (L97) where play got a central place, especially for
the 6-10 year olds. Now there is an increasing awareness in Norway to stimulate «out-door
school» and out-door playgrounds at school. This is especially important in urban areas. But
areas for constructional play and dramatic play out doors are almost nonexistent. It is a hard
job to change the attitudes of the teachers in relation to play, and to make the out-door
environment at school more attractive for 6-10-year olds. In my book “Leik i småskolen” (Play
in lower primary school. Paper ICCP 1997 Portugal), I also discuss the physical demands for
better out-door play.
Problem
How to get better playgrounds for constructional play and dramatic play in primary school?
First I will go to playground literature relevant for my problem.
Traditional playgrounds
The traditional out-door play environment often is a black asphalt square. The school follow a
piagetian thinking that rule play is the most advanced category of play. Much literature about
outdoors play take the dominance of gross motor play and diverse rule play outdoors for
granted (Johnson et al 1999:259). In the Norwegian school hopscotch etc. and organized
sports like football dominate the play possibilities. After the new school reform many
communities and schools have in addition bought costly traditional park play apparatus from
commercial firms, like climbing structures, slides, swings, carousels. The debate has been
dominated by new safety demands; many accidents have occurred in older commercial play
apparatus in parks without play leaders. The commercial firms made huge advertising
campaigns to argue for their newer, safer and therefore very costly play apparatus. Most
schools in Norway have now bought this colourful, beautifully designed play apparatus,
without reading all the research reports the last 50 years, which show that this costly
apparatus occupies only a few children for a short time. For instance: Research shows in an
American study that in the peak hours for play, the traditional park playground was empty for
children 88% of the time (Johnson et al 1999:263).
Uninformed of play research, most of the school leaders in Norway have now equipped their
out-door space with swings, slides after the model of park playground from 1910 + modern
amusement parks where children have only short Sensomotoric stops! Here follow a typical
product from a new commercial catalogue:
1

Price: 112 500 N. Crones (about 15000 dollars) Price: 17900 N. Crones (about 2000 dollars)
Fig. 1. Commercial play apparatus
Remember that the historical reason for park playgrounds was to hinder destruction of the
fine plantations, considering children as having nothing to do in parks. Short stops, no
pedagogic reflections, backed the policy. The traditional park playground has following
advantages from adult point of view:
• Permanent
• Need no adult play leader/contact
• Looks always fine and child friendly
• No mess and scraps
• Adults are proud to have made a special area for children
But the play research seeing the playground from the children’s point of view find only
disadvantages:
• Short play periods
• No progression in the play
• No flexibility in use
• Only gross motor play
• No constructional play
• No role-play
• Without adults near by, there are many accidents
• Very costly apparatus results in few, permanent constructions, without variations and
new installations
Hendricks (1999) analyse new opened public playgrounds, in Vancouver 1998 and Odense
in Denmark the same year. In spite of very different designs and adult values she conclude:
…has a strong predominance of adult values, of providing play material and
possibilities…with little or no reference to what is important in the lives of the
children who will play here…
Conditions for good outdoor play – play functions
Most of the school leaders have minor knowledge about children’s play, and do not realize
that play is a process where the children freely must form both the play and their playground
environment. The play research during the last 70 years yields findings that are very
congruent: The playgrounds must be stimulating for all play categories: Sensomotoric play,
constructional play, role play/dramatic play, rule play (Trageton 1997). The playground
analysis must start with the play functions. What sort of unstructured material must the
children possess in order to create a rich outdoor play space? An adventure playgroundsbuilding
playground, where the children all the time create and recreate their playgrounds is
2

a very good answer (Johnson et al 1999: 260). The English adventure playgrounds started in
bombed areas in London in 1945. The famous Danish buildings playgrounds started in 1943,
and later on included also care for animals and plants. Scharnburg ( 1969) describes an
idealistic experiment where 7-12 year old children formed their own hut village, with child
meetings who in democratic decisions distribute building grounds for the huts, and solved
conflicts and problems together. Of course idealistic adult play leaders were in the
background as advisors and to take the conflicts and get goodwill and some money from the
adult authorities in the community. Laursen (1985) follows Scharnburg, but with a more
moderate realism, were preschool teachers and professional play leaders having the
responsibility for the building playground. He starts with following play functions:
• Defined area, dry/wet
• Sand and water
• Run- and drive play
• Playhouse, holes
• Climbing play, other movement play
• Building and construction possibilities
• Fireplace aktivity, cooking, melting, making ceramics
• Animal caring for
• Plants
The building playgrounds for 7-12 year olds in Denmark (and in Sweden) were free time
clubs after school time. But in the 1980´s is the Danish leisure time clubs began to become
more closely attended to school, also physically. The kindergarten class (6 year) and grade
1&2 (7/8 years) should be seen more as a whole both in school time and in free play time
after school. In addition to building playground they wanted other activities for the children
like stone wall building, building greenhouses, bamboo- planting, making a pond for gold fish,
feeding hens. They did not want the fixed, permanent playground (Illum/Danielsen 1987:147)
In Sweden, a similar movement have got strong influence (Olsson 1995), inspired by the
English “green” movement (Adams 1990, Titman 1994).
Norwegian development
Physical/motor rule play
This play category has had most interest both in the traditional school playgrounds as well as
in the modern. But a football area and some asphalt and a swing give very little variation in
the play. Flemmen (1993, 1996) make a heavy attack on the traditional playground, and have
developed simple solutions for differentiated motor play. The play environment must give
possibilities for:
• Transport on the ground
• Transport in trees (jungle play)
• Movement knit to tools
• Movement knit to rhythms and rites
• Movement knit to communication
Flemmen have inspired many schools in Western Norway to use the nature around the
school as playground, and with simple ropes, self-made hinders, balance over small brooks,
climbing in mountains, differentiate the movement demands to daring experiences. In
wintertime, the snow, skies and different type of slides are very important.
What about the safety problems in this dangerous and risky type of playground? Ironically
there are fewer accidents in these simple ”jungle” playgrounds than the commercial play
apparatus.
Constructive play. Dramatic play/role play
While there is a lot of interest and books about physical/motor play and the “green wave” in
Norway, constructive play and role-play is almost forgotten. Haug (1991, 1995) found that the
outdoor play for the 6-year olds was dominated by physical/motor play. Only 5-10% was
constructive and role-play! Norway has little research about constructive play and role-play in
3

primary school. Also internationally only few projects tell about such play forms in primary
school (Retter 1983, Hartmann 1988, Hall & Abbott ed. 1991, Moyles 1994, Pessanha 1995,
Johnson et al 1999). Constructive and role-play out doors set different demands for the
environment than physical/motor play. The children need building materials, and clearly
defined small spaces inviting small playgroups to establish a safe role-play. Building
playground meet both these demands. “Make something with the playgrounds”
(Andersen/Svane 1982) was inspired of the Danish tradition using recycled cheap or free
materials, but not so much about building playgrounds. Svane (1998) have another article
concentrating about building playground, and he has a key position in Norway through his
Internet site: “Aktivt arkiv-Barnas landskap” http://home.c2i.net/swan/
SFO (leisure time organisation at school) started late in Norway, but have exploded from
8000 children 1988 to 110 000 children in 2000. The Family Department gave in two
compendiums about SFO activity a rich description of out door play, physical/motor play, the
“green wave” and building huts as a favourite area. In compendium IV, Borgen (1990) divide
play in following categories:
1. Movement play
2. Reproducing constructive play
3. Creative constructive play
4. Rule play
5. Imitation play and conventional role play
6. Creative pretend play
What about practice?
This is a fine theoretical ideal. What about practice? SFO is dominated of unqualified
personnel, most of the out door activities are narrowed to football and hanging around
without continuous plays, while the adults are indoor. Lidén et al (1994) gives hard critique
over a stereotype play environment both indoors and outdoors. However, hut building out in
the forest is very popular. But in the children’s free play without adult personnel out doors,
she observed many conflicts because lack of building materials. One class had built a nice
hut, where after another group of children destroyed the whole hut because the needed the
material to their hut. Consequently this hut was destroyed the next day as revenge. “Free”
play can be very tough and cruel!
Methods
I repeat the problem at page 1: How to get better playgrounds for constructional play and
dramatic play in primary school? As the literature review shows, the problem is not lack of
good ideas. The problem is realizing them in practice. Therefore the chosen methods is
action research with a cyclic process plan -> action -> observation -> reflection -> new plan
(Mc Kernan 1998). Through the last 14 years I have together with the staffs at the schools
developed practical implementations to realise the good intentions from playground literature
and the Danish building playgrounds. However, the Danish tradition was only free time
activities outside school. My three examples are all planned and realized as school activities,
but where the children could continue to play in the huts after school time in SFO. This is
important in relation to the new situation in Norway with the long school day for the 6-10 year
olds both in lecture time and leisure time at school. I have documented the playground
processes in videos, pictures, articles and books.
Results
Example I. Organised hut building in the 6-year project (1987-90)
Before lowering the school start from 7 to 6 year, we had an experimental innovation
research period in 42 communities in Norway. We should find a model for combining the best
ideas from preschool and from school. The day was divided in 4 school hours, and the rest
as free playtime at school (SFO) or the child could go home. In one of these communities hut
building became a dominating school activity. My preschool student group constructed
4

frameworks for 6 huts in recycled, old materials we had got free, from building firms.
Waterproof roof was important (it is raining much in the Western Norway).
Fig 2. Framework for huts
Very cheap materials for floor and walls were bought. Hammers and saws were important
tools. 3-4 children in each hut had to plan where to have doors, windows and so on. The huts
stood near by each other and formed a community. The children worked and played in the
huts the whole school year. The teacher had 6 themes in her cross subject curriculum plan,
and she discovered that the huts were useful for every theme (Rygg 1991). In “The
vocational life at Stord” the huts became shops, bank, hospital and café in a rich dramatic
frame play (Brostrøm 1995). This demonstrated play as a central and effective working
method (learning-centred play, Moyles 1994).
Example II The hut village (1992-93)
Inspired of the project above, teachers in another school started a similar project for 80
children 6-10 year olds. The parents made the framework constructions together with the
children; afterwards the children built the rest. They made 8 huts, placed on the asphalt on
the school. The best master plan for the village would be two rows of huts and a street
between. The work was planned and realized as schoolwork, a combination of Art and Craft,
Science, Social science, Mathematics and Norwegian language. Each group used one day a
week in 5 weeks to fulfil the building (Albertsen 1993). In English lectures, the huts became
Post office, Library, Petrol Station, Hair Dresser, Shops and so on (Kurzus 1993). Each
group tried to talk English to each other and the teacher in relation to their role-play in the
huts. After school time the huts were used in free play in SFO (leisure time activities).
Example III. The hut town in Bergen. (1999- 2001)
Five children per hut are ideal. What to do in a bigger school in a city? How to get space
enough, when you have only a narrow playground? Many schools say they have too much
asphalt. Luckily enough asphalt is ideal for hut towns. The huts stand direct on the asphalt, it
is easy to clean up, and the streets are ready for the traffic with cars and bicycles. A school
in Bergen was inspired by a course I held where I showed videos from earlier projects. After
long discussions over a lengthy period, the school decided that 150 children in grade 1 and 2
at the school should build a town of huts. Bergen was one of the cultural cities in Europe in
year 2000, so the town planning suited well with the programme “Our town”.
The architect for the new school had reserved the forest for hut building but it was soon
destroyed of too many young hut builders on a little area. The architect had not reserved an
area for hut building on the asphalt. We therefore had problems to find an asphalt area suited
for 30 huts. How to get space for 30 huts in a restricted area of 13 x17 metres? In a town, the
houses stand near by each other. Here follow two possible examples of town planning for 30
huts in an area of this size:
5

Fig. 3. Town planning. Two ex.
Would the children want a strict renaissance plan or a more labyrinth plan? Because of the
movable huts, they can change the plan throughout the years. The children became town
planners and could in a model find out how the town plan might be altered. Thereafter they
could move the huts according to the plan. In the last two years there have been a lot of
different town plans. Here is one of them:
Fig. 4. Another plan
The headmaster for the school said in the newspaper reportage:
We look at this hut town as the most cross subject theme we ever have had. We combine Art
and Craft, Mathematics and a long row other subjects in a practical way. The children learn
to collaborate across the grades. The activities are so varied.
After two months work, one day a week, the invited major of Bergen, could declare this hut
town for opened. Cheap materials make the cost of this “town” a minimum compared to the
permanent, commercial play apparatus, which are hardly used. In this town the school
bought a lot of new material, so the cost where about 60 000 Norwegian Crones, about 9000
dollars. However, this is only half the price of the commercial play apparatus in page 2 in this
paper! In this hut town up to 150 children in 30 groups can play both constructional and roleplay
at the same time!
The school is also one of the members of my project “Creative writing on computers grade
1-4” (Trageton 2001). The 6 year olds had for a long time been playing with all the letters and
produced many pages of letter strings. But now they were also capable of writing a little story
consisting of a few words. Below are some reports from the building process:
6

HENRIK JONAS make huts
MAKE HUTS HAVEFUN build huts
BUILDING HUTS HUTBUILDING hammerand
HAMMER AND NAILS
nails
(+ Letters and numbers)
Fig. 5. Stories from the hut building
In our National Curriculum cross-subject thematic teaching shall dominate for 6-10 year olds.
«Our town» would be a good theme for several months. Also the social learning has shown
good results and bullying at school has been reduced. Most school subjects became
integrated in that theme. In the theme “Christmas” the town was called Bethlehem, and
Joseph and Maria went from hut to hut before they found a place to live. After the birth of
Jesus, the shepherds came, and the wise kings had fine presents, and at last 24-second
graders were gathered into the hut stable!
Another grade 2 class used the huts as a modern town with flats, bank, super market, taxi
drivers. Robbers of the bank made it necessary with an effective police station including a
solid jail. The bank director was very upset because all people only took out money, nobody
set in money, and so he could not get his wages! In the next month the children should have
a theme about Egypt and the pyramids. Of course, then the hut town is converted to Cairo.
And in the English lessons the town can be London.
After three-four years the town has to be deconstructed, so the newcomers at school can
build their town. Much of the materials can then be used for a second time. The children
construct a deepened knowledge about all cross subject themes the school have chosen and
the subjects involved: Art and Craft, science, social science, language, and mathematics.
After school lessons the same huts give good play possibilities in SFO (leisure time
institution at school)
One effect of the hut building came as a surprise for the teachers at all three schools. The
bullying problem at school was strongly reduced, and the social climate among the children
became better.To sum up the advantages of a building playground from the children’s point
of view:
• Exiting, fun
• Most children want to play here
• Long lasting play
• Social play, conflicts are solved of the child group
• Children make their own progression
7

• Maximum flexibility
• Both gross motor and fine motor play
• Constructive and role play is central
• Maximum children - minimum area
• Minimum of accidents, calculable risks
Conclusion
It is sad that 99% of the schools in Norway have used millions of crones to purchase readymade
climbing frames and other play apparatus that do not stimulate varied, flexible and
developing play, instead of the much cheaper hut building.
Why have 99% of the schools in Norway neglected to plan for a hut town, where the children
are constructing and deconstructing their own out door play space?
I think some reasons are the following adult attitudes:
• Have never seen such a hut town in function
• Huts should be in the forest
• What is wrong with empty asphalt and football?
• Hut building is dangerous
• To little space in the school yard
• No money (have used them to costly commercial apparatus!)
• Ugly, scrappy, chaotic, the teacher is loosing control
• Will soon be damaged of vandals
• To much work for the teachers
• Have not heard about it in my teacher education
But I believe that the most important reason is lack of knowledge about play research and
the best conditions for outdoor play, and lack of technical knowledge about materials and
constructions. A building playground project with continuous changes possible, such as
the projects reported herein, will stimulate the neglected constructive play and dramatic
role-play outdoors. At the same time our approach is a much cheaper solution to the
problem of providing outdoor play space and objects; and such an approach teach also
the children that recycling the materials is important for global conservation of natural
resources. This is an important lesson for the children of our wealthy western society.
Literature
Albertsen S (1991) Bygge på skoleplassen? FOU oppgåve i 6-10 årspedagogikk. Stord
lærarhøgskule
Andersen/Svane (1982) Gjør noe med skolegården. Forbruker- og
Administrasjonsdepartementet
Borgen C (1990) Den fantastiske leken. Skolefritidsordninger. Kompendium nr. IV
Fellessekretariatet for skolefritidsordninger. KUF
(1990) Tilrettelegging av lek og lekeformens utviklende betydning for barns
personlighetsutvikling. Kompendium nr IV.
Fellessekretariatet for skolefritidsordning.
Brostrøm S (1995) 6-9 årspædagogik. Leg, leg, rammeleg. (Play, play, frame play)
Systime A/S Aarhus
Flemmen A (1993) Ekte leik på den politiske dagsorden i Kroppsøving årg. 43 nr
7/8
(1996) Høringsuttalelse: Læreplan for faget kroppsøving i Kroppsøving årg 46,
nr 1
Haug P (1991) 6-åringane-barnehage eller skule? Det norske samlaget. Oslo
(1996) Barnehage på skule. Norsk senter for barneforskning. Trondheim
8

Hendricks B (1999) Communicating playfulness and cultural symbols in post modern play
areas. Paper 2 nd international toy research conference. NCFL.
Halmstad. Sweden
Illum A/Danielsen L (1987) Vil du - Vil du. Samordnet skolestart. Duo forlag. Aabybro
Johnson et al. (1999) Play and Early Childhood Development. 2.ed. Longman
KUF (1996) Læreplanverket for den 10-årige grunnskolen (L 97)
Kurzus B L(1993) Konkret-operasjonell engelsk i 3. klasse. FOU arbeid i 6-10 årsped.
Stord lærarhøgsk.
Laursen S (1985) Legepladsen. Børn og Unge. København
Liden H/Øie/Haug (1994) Mellom skole og fritid. Universitetsforlaget. Oslo
Lindholm G (1995) Skolgården. Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet. Movium. Alnarp
Moyles J (1996) The Exellence of Play. Open University Press.Buckingham. England
Olsson T (1995) Skolgården - det gränsløsa uterum. Liber. Stockholm
Rygg Å (1991) Byggeleik som pedagogisk verksemd. FOU arbeid Stord
lærarhøgskule
Scharnburg C (1969) Barnas jord. Pax forlag. Oslo
Sjøen L V (1996) Skole og fritidspark. FOU arbeid i småskulepedagogikk. Høgskolen
Stord/Haugesund
Svane F (1998) Skolens utemiljø. (The school playground) Tano-Aschehoug
Titman W (1994) Special Places, special People. The Hidden Curriculum of School
Grounds.
Godalming. Surrey
Trageton A (1997) Leik i småskolen. (Play in lower primary school) Fagbokforlaget.
Bergen(1999)
Lisboa(1999b)
Play in lower primary school. Paper ICCP World play conference.
Theme-based learning, play and physical environment in lower primary
school.
Paper TASP. Santa Fe. New Mexico. USA (2000)
Tema i småskolen. (Themes in lower primary school) Fagbokforlaget.
Bergen (2001) Creative writing on computers. Paper ICCP World play conference.
Erfurt
I have edited a row of videos to document the different projects.
Traditional playground
Advantages from adult point of view:
• Permanent
• Need no adult play leader/contact
• Looks always fine and child friendly
• No mess and scraps
• Adults are proud to have made a special area for children
Disadvantages from play research and the children’s point of view
• Short play periods
• No progression in the play
• No flexibility in use
• Only gross motor play
• No constructional play
• No role-play
• Without adults near by, there are many accidents
• Very costly apparatus results in few and permanent constructions, without variations
and new installations
9

Adventure playground – Building playground
Advantages from play research and the children’s point of view
• Exiting, fun
• Most children want to play here
• Long lasting play
• Social play, conflicts are solved of the child group
• Children make their own progression
• Maximum flexibility
• Both gross motor and fine motor play
• Constructive and role play is central
• Maximum children-minimum area
• Minimum of accidents, calculable risks
Play functions (Laursen 1985)
• Defined area, dry/wet
• Sand and water
• Run- and drive play
• Playhouse, holes
• Climbing play, other movement play
• Building and construction possibilities
• Fireplace aktivity, cooking, melting, making ceramics
• Animals, caring for
• Plants, caring for
Motor play. Possibilities for:
• Transport on the ground
• Transport in trees (jungle play)
• Movement knit to tools
• Movement knit to rhythms and rites
• Movement knit to communication
(Flemmen 1996)
Play cathegories (Borgen 1990)
1. Movement play
2. Reproducing constructive play
3. Creative constructive play
4. Rule play
5. Imitation play and conventional role play
6. Creative pretend play
Why have 99% of the schools in Norway neglected to plan for a hut town, where the children
are constructing and deconstructing their own out door play space?
I think some reasons are the following adult attitudes:
10

• Have never seen such a hut town in function
• Huts should be in the forest
• What is wrong with empty asphalt and football?
• Hut building is dangerous
• To little space in the school yard
• No money (have used them to costly commercial apparatus!)
• Ugly, scrappy, chaotic, the teacher is loosing control
• Will soon be damaged of vandals
• To much work for the teachers
• Have not heard about it in my teacher education
11