Katie Dickison

LBST 392

Nancy van Groll

May 29, 2020

                                                            Reading Reflection 2

Ellen Beate and Hanson Sandseter conducted a study looking into the characteristics of risky play by observing two different Norwegian preschools with differing playground structures. One was a more traditional playground structure that was fenced in, and the other was an outdoor playground situated in a forest with the only conventional equipment being a sandpit and a rope swing. The aim of conducting the study was to determine what characteristics can be used to judge risky play. But first, it’s important to note what they identify as risky play and why kids participate in the act. Beate and Sandseter define risky play as “thrilling and exciting forms of play that involve a risk of physical injury” (3), and the reason why kids participate in risky play is that “It brings about pleasant experiences and emotions such as arousal, excitement, fun, merriment, joy, and lightheartedness” (6). In conducting their study, they concluded that there were two prominent categories of risk characteristics: environmental characteristics and individual characteristics. Environmental characteristics are the features of the play environment, and individual characteristics are the different ways the child carried out the play. While observing the children Beate and Sandseter were able to categorize different characteristics of risky play into these two categories and also understand how these categories influence the perceived risk present in the play environment. 

In carrying out their study, Beate and Sendseter looked into six different kinds of risky play: great heights, high speed, dangerous tools, dangerous elements, rough-and-tumble, and disappear/get lost. In doing so, this allowed them to observe how both environmental and individual characteristics influenced differing kinds of risky play. What stood out to me the most, but unsurprisingly, was the presence of the environmental characteristic of staff surveillance/supervision. Not all of the different kinds of risky play mentioned this characteristic, but nonetheless, it was of great importance considering the influence over children’s ability for risk-taking. To be honest, this had me at a crossroads as to what the ideal role of a staff member should be in this type of situation. The reason why I say that is because there’s a possibility of both heightening and reducing the risk factor in children’s play, which could be both good and bad depending on the situation. Obviously, safety always comes first, and if we’re not watching out for our children, there’s a high risk of injury, but there’s also a point where you could be crossing the line and disrupting the potential development that occurs when allowing children to engage in risky and challenging play. It should be noted as well that there is also a potential risk for injury when interfering during risky play because you could be distracting the child from their task leading to a possible injury that may not have occurred otherwise. I guess what I’m trying to get at is there’s such a fine line between overstepping and under stepping, so how do you know if you’re doing too much or too little? And is there a perfect medium?

Works Cited: Beate , Ellen, and Hansen Sandseter . “Characteristics of Risky Play.” Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, vol. 9, no. 1, 2009, pp. 3–21., doi:10.1080/14729670802702762.