Next Article in Journal
Conceptualization of Bioreactor Landfill Approach for Sustainable Waste Management in Karachi, Pakistan
Next Article in Special Issue
Students’ Perceptions of ILS as a Learning-Style-Identification Tool in E-Learning Environments
Previous Article in Journal
Modified Harmony Search Algorithm-Based Optimization for Eco-Friendly Reinforced Concrete Frames
Previous Article in Special Issue
Inspiring the Next Generation of HPC Engineers with Reconfigurable, Multi-Tenant Resources for Teaching and Research
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Developing a Conceptual Model for the Causal Effects of Outdoor Play in Preschools Using PLS-SEM

1
Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, National University of Malaysia, Bangi 43600, Malaysia
2
Faculty of Built Environment, Tunku Abdul Rahman University College, Kuala Lumpur 53300, Malaysia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(6), 3365; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063365
Submission received: 8 January 2022 / Revised: 22 February 2022 / Accepted: 11 March 2022 / Published: 13 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue E-learning Personalization Systems and Sustainable Education)

Abstract

:
This study attempts to establish the causal effects of outdoor play through a conceptual model consisting of six latent constructs. Seventy Penang preschool operators took part in a questionnaire survey conducted from June to July 2021. All of the 70 respondents agreed that outdoor play is important for children’s development even though only 62 respondents implemented outdoor play yards in their preschools. Raw data from these 62 respondents were used to develop the conceptual model by PLS-SEM. Measurement models were assessed by checking the indicator reliability, internal consistency reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity. The structural model was assessed by checking the SRMR and NFI. The measurement models are found to be acceptable with AVE > 0.50 for all of the constructs and all of the 34 indicators have loadings > 0.50. However, there are 16 indicators with difference between loadings < 0.10, and the structural model does not have a good fit with SRMR > 0.10 and NFI < 0.90. Lack of discriminant validity could be remedied by removing eight indicators with difference between loadings < 0.10. Model fit could be improved with larger sample size since bootstrapping with 1000 iterations yielded SRMR = 0.098 at 95% for the saturated model. Seven significant paths were found among the six constructs in the final conceptual model.

1. Introduction

Studies show that early childhood education’s major goal is to help children achieve normal physical and mental development while also preparing them for formal education [1,2]. A plethora of evidence suggests that when children interact with others, they learn more than when they do not. Children learn more when they are engaged in a learning task rather than becoming distracted. Furthermore, when learning material is directly tied to their lives or related to something they already know, rather than presented abstractly and out of context, children learn more successfully [3,4,5]. Children, in particular, derive these learning experiences from their play experiences, which provide them with opportunities to interact with the built environment [6].
Outdoor play, in particular, provides unique learning and development opportunities in early childhood education. Outdoor play also aligns with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in that it allows children to play, experience nature, and, in the long run, help to alleviate global sustainability concerns. Indoor and outdoor play areas must be regarded as equally valid learning environments in early childhood education. Outdoor play and learning in early childhood education is a multifaceted topic that includes everything from children’s well-being and physical skills to risk management and play-space design to immersion in natural outdoor settings and teachers’ outdoor pedagogies and dispositions [7].
In a study on the importance of outdoor play at preschool, researchers [8] emphasize that outdoor play should not become overly academic or overly controlled by teachers. According to the experts, outdoor play areas should be large enough and designed in such a way that children’s play can be fully expressed, where they can make a mess, run, jump, and hide, shout, whistle, and explore the natural environment. The quality of an outdoor play yard for preschoolers is determined by a number of elements. Design of the play area, safety concerns, play equipment, accessibility, and adult supervision are just a few of them.
In Malaysia, preschool education is a vital experience for every young child. The Malaysian Ministry of Education (MOE) implemented an early childhood education (ECE) program, also known as National Preschool Curriculum Standard or Kurikulum Standard Prasekolah Kebangsaan (KSPK) to improve the quality of preschool education for children [9]. KSPK is the main standard guideline provided to all preschools in Malaysia with the goal of striking the full development of children in terms of physical, emotional, social, intellectual and spiritual, in addition to providing a safe and good learning environment [10].
In order to achieve the goals mentioned in KSPK curriculum, learning through play (LTP) is the most appropriate approach to be incorporated into children’s learning. This is due to the fact that play is an effective strategy for learning as play can be taken in any form to fulfil children’s physical, social, emotional, academic and especially cognitive development [11,12]. According to Lim and Azizi Bahauddin [13], this approach is significant for preschool teachers in their lessons since it is a way where children can play and learn at the same time. Children deserve to play as part of their childhood experience to help them to make sense of the world before they grow up [14].
Studies on preschool physical environments to support play have frequently found physical environment is fundamental to the quality of play and learning for children. Instead of viewing the overall environment of preschools, it is also crucial to look into their outdoor spaces. According to Habibe Acar [15] and Mariam Felani Shaari and Sabarinah Sh Ahmad [12], outdoor spaces have often been overlooked in preschool settings. Outdoor spaces are the ideal setting for children to engage in active and creative play. Outdoor environments provide diverse affordances which stimulate children’s senses as well as improving their growth and development [16].
The quality of childcare, preschool, kindergarten, and other early childhood education is related to the quality of the physical designed environment [17,18]. The Children’s Physical Environments Rating Scale (CPERS5) has been devised to assess the quality of the physical environments of childcare, preschool, kindergarten, and other early childhood education facilities, in particular subscale 12 and subscale 13 in Part D (Outdoor Spaces) which evaluate the functional needs and development needs of outdoor activity areas around the building, its play yards, and surrounding conditions, respectively. In addition, the quality of outdoor play spaces is related to children’s cognitive, social, and emotional development [19,20]. Shaari et al. [21] concluded that excellent preschool physical environment (PPE) could potentially improve childhood cognitive development. They found that design quality of PPE has significant positive relationship with cognitive school readiness of pre-schoolers, comprises of reading, counting, colour recognition, cognitive as well as problem-solving skills.
Whitebread et al. [22] (p. 4) mentioned in their whitepaper that “while researchers in evolutionary and developmental psychology, anthropology, neuroscience and educational studies have hypothesised about how play might enhance children outcomes, much of this evidence however merely establishes associations rather than firm, causal relationships”. Besides, National Preschool Curriculum Standard (NPCS) in Malaysia do not provide adequate strategies for developing physical environment reflective of child-centred pedagogy advocated in NPCS.
This study attempts to establish the causal effects of outdoor play by linking the variables in subscale 12 and subscale 13 of CPERS5 to the outcomes of outdoor play using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) through a conceptual model.

2. Literature Review

The importance of outdoor play and outdoor play yards to support play for children’s well-being, learning and development is reviewed from the context of physical development, cognitive development, social and emotional development and academic learning.

2.1. Importance of Outdoor Play to Children

Outdoor play is increasingly being recognized as a basis for children’s development. Outdoor play encourages children to explore the environments around them. It has been observed and revealed by researchers that outdoor play promotes children to communicate, express their feelings, explore and discover the world surrounding them [23].
Outdoor is an environment whereby children have the chance to encounter nature, including experiencing and exploring the natural environment. On top of that, outdoor offers new possibilities for children to explore and supports the multi-sensory experience such as sights, sounds, smells and touch [24]. Wilson [25] stated that a feeling of love, sensitivity and empathy towards nature will unconsciously develop in children when children are constantly exposed to the natural world.
The role of the outdoor environment is significant in early childhood learning. Outdoor environment provides a platform or space that challenges children and allows children to investigate and think, to conduct their favorite activities including meeting new friends [26]. New learning is directly introduced through exploration in outdoor environments together with providing children the ideas of the world surrounding them. Yildirim and Özyılmaz Akamca [27] found that learning in outdoor can contribute to physical, cognitive, language and particularly social emotional development.
In addition, Habibe Acar [15] and Nor Fadzila Aziz and Ismail Said [28] mentioned that children can learn through the observations of natural or artificial elements in outdoor environments by experiencing three modes of learning, namely cognitive, emotional and moral. The natural outdoor environments also motivate cooperative and imaginative play [29] that triggers children’s imagination and curiosity.
Children will benefit from developmental experiences through outdoor play which cannot be easily replaced alternatively. Outdoor play is important to children in terms of physical development, cognitive development, social and emotional development and academic learning [11,30].
Outdoor affords children the freedom to carry out activities that they cannot carry out indoors, such as doing vigorous activities, to be messy and also make loud noises. Outdoor play is very good for children’s health and growing. Of late, several health issues have been found to afflict Malaysian children, notably obesity, overweight and physical growth [31,32].
Outdoor play is the best solution that can help to address the issues on children’s health crises. Based on the findings of Gubbels et al. [33], children are most likely to have a high level of activities when they are taking part in outdoor play, since open space has fewer restraints and greater flexibility on the children’s gross motor activities compared to indoor environment. In addition, physical activities such as running, jumping, walking are usually carried out during outdoor plays, increasing the movement of children. More locomotion results in increasing blood flow which benefits brain development as well as the development of fine motor skills [34]. Outdoor play can greatly minimize health problems among children and their physical development, provided outdoor space is adequate or complete with good infrastructure and equipment.
Cognitive development is defined as the process of forming thoughts, including remembering, decision making and problem solving [35]. Outdoor play helps children to develop imagination and memory, which is important for thinking along with developing cognition [35]. Outdoor play leads children to investigate, explore and make sense of their surroundings. Outdoor provides children the experience of rich multi-sensory as well as promotes a great degree of observation, curiosity of the environment surroundings, encouraging cognitive learning [34].
Various types of play behavior connect the performance on cognitive tasks such as language and scholastic accomplishment [36]. Through outdoor play, children have the chance to interact with nature, which may directly promote the development of the ability to recognize and identify the elements of the environments, things, plants, animals and so forth, which is known as naturalistic intelligence [37]. Padulo et al. [38] found that agility is correlated with English, Italian, mathematics, music, and sport marks, whereas jump is correlated with English, mathematics, sport, and technologies marks.
In outdoor environments, children seem to have more freedom to play including expressing themselves [39]. Children are likely to make friends and enjoy of being with others when they are exposed to outdoor play [40]. In fact, social interactions between children during indoor and outdoor play are varied [39]. Through outdoor play, children develop better communication and perspective-taking skills [41]. During outdoor play, boys are more likely to build friendships when they are chasing each other around while for girls, they will be more positive and confident compared to indoor play. Children also have the tendency to learn cooperation and understanding during their play [42]. Besides social development, emotional development happens when children are interacting outdoors in the natural environment. In conclusion, stress is reduced, and children become more attentive, happier, and healthier with greater self-esteem [40].
According to Piaget [43], children develop three major types of knowledge through play, namely physical, logical–mathematical and social. When children play outdoors, they tend to utilize natural things to represent something entirely unique, such as flowers becoming hair pins. This explains the ability in representing the main concepts of reading and writing [30,44]. Furthermore, since children have the opportunity to explore through nature when playing outdoors, children unconsciously form the recognition of the surroundings and the patterns in surroundings.
Recognizing patterns is fundamental for a creative and meaningful learning such as interpreting the meaning of words and form them into a sentence as well as understanding the numeracy in mathematics [45]. It becomes a part of fun learning development. Lastly, outdoor plays provide first hand experiences for children through their contact with nature. This aids in delivering more comprehensive knowledge about plants, animals and other relevant materials rather than simple meaning and learning from the textbooks [30,46].
It was previously reported that the physical environment of the outdoor play in preschool was deemed important to the learning as well as physical and cognitive development of the children. However, the relationship among the different constructs explored in different studies remains to be explored. Thus, the current study aims to investigate the relationship between the constructs of learning and the physical and cognitive development among Malaysian preschool children. Specifically, the study’s objective is to establish a conceptual model to link the six constructs, namely functional needs, development needs, physical development, cognitive development, social and emotional development and academic learning, and to explore the causal relationships among the six constructs in the hope to shed more light into understanding a conducive outdoor environment for children’s development in the Malaysian preschool context.

2.2. Importance of Outdoor Play Yard Design in Preschool

Although the role of outdoor play is crucial to early childhood learning, the role of outdoor space must not be underestimated when it comes to fostering play in children’s learning. Outdoor play spaces are platforms where children have the freedom to explore and develop skills such as motor, cognitive, and social skills; improving academics that all are vital for their education.
The early childhood education (ECE) in Malaysia trends have shifted towards learning beyond classroom walls, which is basically learning which is more exposed to outdoor environments. Outdoor activities including unstructured plays and physical activities have also been highlighted in the KSPK as part of the learning activities to offer children the chance to gain their own meaningful learning experience. According to Nor Fadzila Aziz and Ismail Said [16], good spaces with the association of natural and complete elements are crucial in promoting diverse plays that encourage more children’s abilities and interests. Therefore, simply knowing the importance of outdoor play for children’s development is insufficient for preschool teachers to completely integrate play approach in preschools. The spatial quality of outdoor space has to be supportive of children’s play as well. LTP approach that supports play is the most challenging to adopt in ECE. The limitation of quality outdoor spaces provided in preschools is also a problem in this approach.
Basic guidelines, as shown in Table 1, were set up by the Malaysia MOE in 2012 to standardize the built environment of preschools in order to facilitate local authorities to assess the applications of preschool establishments [47]. It is clear that the design of play space environments is not emphasized in the guidelines. Preschool operators have the responsibility to refer to universal design (UD) to set up the outdoor space in preschools as stated in the guideline. UD is defined as the design of environments and products that is applicable to all people including disabling without requiring the adaption or specialized design. There are seven principles in UD, namely equitable use, flexibility in use, simple and intuitive, perceptible information, tolerance for error, low physical effort and size and space for approach and use [48].
Quality outdoor play yards are necessary to support the quality of children’s play experience in preschools. According to Álvarez-Bueno et al. [49], schools provide important settings for improving children physical and psychological-cognitive health, and offering opportunities for physical activities. Numerous international assessment tools are available to evaluate the quality of outdoor play yards, for example, the Children’s Physical Environments Rating Scale, Fifth Edition (CPERS5), Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale, Revised (ECERS-R) and Preschool Outdoor Environment Measurement Scale (POEMS) [17,19,50,51]. CPERS5 is a better assessment tool for evaluating the outdoor play yards quality in preschool compared to ECERS-R and POEMS due to its high reliability and validity since the scale items are more accurate and stable.

3. Methodology

Due to travelling restrictions during COVID-19 pandemic, only private preschool operators in Penang were targeted as the respondents to provide the required information in this study. A total of 110 private preschools in Penang were trawled from the Internet to obtain their emails and mobile telephone numbers. For convenience of data collection and retrieval, the survey questionnaires created using Google Forms were distributed to these private preschool operators through either emails or mobile telephone numbers by WhatsApp Messenger. Distribution and collection of questionnaires were around one-month duration between June–July 2021.
The respondents were given ample time to answer the questions in the questionnaires. However, only 70 respondents participated in the questionnaire survey. As in this study, this method entails sending questionnaires in the form of Google Forms to a large sample of preschool operators spread across Penang Island. Google Form questionnaires are typically delivered and received ‘cold’ without any prior contact between the researcher and the respondent. Depending on the content and length of the questionnaire, the response rate for this method is typically low. During the current study’s lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic, no preschool was allowed to open. Despite follow-ups with targeted respondents via emails and WhatsApp messenger, many (36%) were still hesitant to participate in the survey.

3.1. Questionnaire Design

The questionnaire comprises of three main sections with closed-ended questions as explained below.

3.1.1. Demographic Information

This section is designed to collect the background information such as gender, age and the total number of years of respondents operating preschools. Additional information such as the number of preschools operated by the respondents is necessary to ensure the data is collected from reliable experienced professionals.

3.1.2. Importance of Outdoor Play and Play Yards for Early Childhood Learning

This section is separated into three parts. Part 1 focus on the importance and implementation of outdoor play for children, part 2 on the importance and implementation of outdoor play spaces/yards, and part 3 on the importance of outdoor play to children measured in terms of four constructs, namely health and physical development, cognitive development, social and emotional development, and academic learning. From literature review, four variables were identified to measure health and physical development, five variables to measure cognitive development, seven variables to measure social and emotional development, and four variables to measure academic learning. In part 3, the respondents were first asked to rate the four constructs by using a checklist. They were then requested to indicate the importance of outdoor play to children for each construct measured on a 5-point Likert scale from ‘1 = strongly disagree’, ‘2 = disagree’, ‘3 = neutral’, ‘4 = agree’ to ‘5 = strongly agree’ based on their opinions and experiences.

3.1.3. Outdoor Play Yards Design in Preschools

This section contains 14 questions adopted from CPERS5 to investigate the quality of outdoor play yards in preschools. Specifically, this section is mainly based on the six questions in subscale 12 and the eight questions in subscale 13 of CPERS5, namely Play Yards: Functional Needs and Play Yards: Developmental Needs, respectively. The respondents were requested to rate the quality of outdoor play yards based in their preschools on a 5-point rating scale from ‘0 = not met’, ‘1 = slightly met’, ‘2 = moderately met’, ‘3 = met’ to ‘4 = fully met’. Those respondents who do not have outdoor play yards in their preschools do not have to participate in this section.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Analysis

Table 2 gives the demographic information of the respondents who operated preschools in Penang and participated in the study. Out of the 70 completed questionnaires received, 57 of the respondents are female (81.4%) and 13 are male. Of the 70 respondents, 65 of them (92.86%) are above 30 years old, and only 5 of them are between 21 to 30 years old. In terms of total number of years operating preschools, 55 of them (78.6%) have operated preschools for more than 6 years and above. When they were asked to indicate the number of preschools operated by them, 44 of them (62.9%) mentioned they owned two or more preschools. It is understandable that in order to set up and operate a preschool in Malaysia, all preschool operators must have preschool education credentials recognized by the Malaysian Ministry of Education.

4.2. Importance of Outdoor Play and Outdoor Play Yards

Table 3 presents the results on the importance and implementation of outdoor play and outdoor play yards to children’s learning and development. Of the 70 respondents who completed and submitted the questionnaires in Google Forms, all of them replied outdoor play is important to children’s development and suitable outdoor play space is essential to support outdoor play experience, even though eight of them (11.4%) indicated they do not implement outdoor play and own an outdoor play yard in their preschools.
Four constructs measuring the importance of outdoor play to early childhood learning are operationalized by the variables shown in Table 4, where the raw data from those respondents without outdoor play yards were excluded from analysis. Among the four constructs, social and emotional development was rated the most important with an overall mean score of 4.640, follows by cognitive development with an overall mean score of 4.539, and academic learning with an overall mean score of 4.436. Health and physical development is rated the least important among the four constructs with an overall mean score of 4.420.
Table 5 presents the results based on the responses obtained from 62 respondents who implemented outdoor play yards in their preschools. Based on the responses obtained from 62 preschool operators in Penang, with overall mean scores of 2.333 for functional needs and 2.218 for development needs, respectively, the outdoor play yards in the preschools operated by them have moderately met the quality requirements specified in CPERS5.

4.3. Structural Equation Modelling

Mann-Whitney U tests carried out separately earlier showed that there were no significant differences between the male subgroup (nine respondents) and female subgroup (53 respondents) for all of the indicators of the six constructs. The raw data for the male and female subgroups were then combined for developing a conceptual model using SmartPLS 3 software. The two-step procedure consisting of assessments of measurement models and structural model recommended by Henseler et al. [52] was adopted.

4.3.1. Conceptual Framework

There are six measurement models in the conceptual framework as indicated in Figure 1. Functional Needs of an outdoor play yards is conceived as an exogenous latent construct with six indicators. Development Needs is an endogenous latent construct to Functional Needs with eight indicators, which in turn is an exogenous construct to the Social and Emotional Development construct (seven indicators), Health and Physical Development construct (four indicators), Cognitive Development construct (five indicators) and Academic Learning construct (four indicators). The arrows connecting any two constructs indicate the perceived causal relationships between two constructs. Barclay, Higgins and Thompson (cited in [53] (p. 6)) stated that the sample size for a PLS model should be higher than the larger value of either (i) 10 times the largest number of formative variables used to measure a latent construct; or (ii) 10 times the largest number of paths directed at a latent construct in the structural model. In Figure 1, the variables are all reflective, and the largest number of paths directed at a latent construct is four, thus the minimum sample size is 40. The sample size of this study was 62, higher than the threshold. Using partial least Squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), PLS algorithm and bootstrapping with 1000 iterations were conducted to obtain the path loadings, t statistics, and p values (as shown in Table 6).

4.3.2. Conceptual Model

To obtain the conceptual model, the following procedures were followed:
(a)
Path with lower t statistics was removed one at a time (paths 11, 10, 9 and then 8).
(b)
Every time a path is removed, PLS algorithm and bootstrapping function were conducted to obtain the path loadings, t statistics and p values.
With the removal of path 11, path 10, path 9, and finally path 8 (in that order), it was observed that the path loadings for the conceptual model shown in Figure 2 are all significant. The results are shown in Table 7.

Assessment of Measurement Models

The following are the criteria adopted to assess the measurement models in Figure 2:
(a)
Internal consistency reliability:
(i)
A construct with high Cronbach’s alpha value indicates the indicators have similar range and meaning [54].
(ii)
Composite reliability (CR) values greater than 0.60 are acceptable in exploratory study [55].
(b)
Indicator reliability: Loading values equal to and greater than 0.5 are acceptable if the summation of loadings results in higher loading scores, contributing to AVE scores of greater than 0.5 [56].
(c)
Convergent validity: In order to achieve adequate convergent validity, each construct should account for at least 50% of the average variance explained (AVE ≥ 0.50) [57,58,59].
(d)
Rho_A: The reliability rho_A will usually lie between Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability [52].
(e)
Discriminant validity: The square root of AVE of a construct should be larger than the correlations between the construct and other constructs in the model [58]. Using cross loadings to assess discriminant validity, each indicator should load high on its own construct but low on other constructs. According to Chin [60], the difference between loadings across latent constructs must not be less than 0.1.
The assessment results on measurement models are summarized in Table 8. Based on the criteria given, the measurement models clearly achieve internal consistency reliability such as Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability, convergent validity with AVE > 0.50 for all of the constructs and indicator reliability with all of the 34 indicators having loadings greater than 0.50. However, Table 9 shows that the measurement models do not achieve satisfactory discriminant validity since the square root of AVE (along the diagonal) is not larger than the correlation (off diagonal) for all of the constructs. The cross loadings between indicators were then compared and the results are summarized in Table 10. There are 16 indicators (in italics) where the difference in loadings for their own constructs with other constructs is less than 0.10 (in italics) and these indicators could be removed to further assess the discriminant validity of the measurement models.

Assessment of Structural Model

The following are the criteria adopted to assess the structural model shown in Figure 2:
(a)
Standardized root mean square residual (SRMR): A value less than 0.10 is considered a good fit [61].
(b)
Normed fit index (NFI): A value above 0.9 usually represents acceptable fit [62].
The assessment results on model fit of structural model are summarized in Table 11, showing the structural model does not have a good fit with SRMR = 0.132 and NFI = 0.373.
Discriminant validity for the measurement models could be achieved by removing 8 indicators with difference in cross loadings < 0.10. Figure 3 is the final conceptual model with AVE value in each construct, path loadings and p values. Table 12 compares the cross loading of each indicator among the six constructs. There is only one indicator with cross loading < 0.10, namely P2Q4. Table 13 indicates that the square root of AVE of a construct along the diagonal is larger than the correlations between the construct and other constructs in the model [58].
Table 14 presents the results using HTMT technique to assess discriminant validity. The results of HTMT inference show that 90% bootstrap confidence interval do not include the value of 1. Hence discriminant validity is established [63].
Table 15 presents the outcome of the lateral collinearity test. All of the inner VIF values for the independent variables that need to be examined for lateral multicollinearity are less than 5.0, indicating lateral multicollinearity is not a concern in the model. The assessment results on model fit of structural model are summarized in Table 16, showing that the model fit has improved with SRMR = 0.125 and NFI = 0.486.
Figure 3 shows there are seven significant paths among the six constructs, and the final results are summarized in Table 17. In order to test the significance levels, t-statistics were generated using bootstrapping function in SmartPLS 3 with 1000 iterations. The results show that:
(a)
The predictor Functional Needs is significantly related to Development Needs (β = 0.796, ρ < 0.001),
(b)
The predictor Development Needs is significantly related to Social and Emotional Development (β = 0.299, ρ < 0.05) and Cognitive Development (β = 0.286, ρ < 0.001),
(c)
The predictor Social and Emotional Development is significantly related to Health and Physical Development (β = 0.671, ρ < 0.001) and Academic Learning (β = 0.511, ρ < 0.001),
(d)
The predictor Health and Physical Development is significantly related to Cognitive Development (β = 0.554, ρ < 0.001), and
(e)
The predictor Cognitive Development is significantly related to Academic Learning (β = 0.393, ρ < 0.05).
The effect size of each significant relationship is shown in Table 17. According to Cohen [64], the values of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 represent a small, medium, and large effect, respectively.
Table 18 summarizes the coefficient of determination scores (R2) of the final conceptual model. R2 is a measure of the model’s predictive accuracy and represents the amount of variance in the endogenous construct explained by all of the exogenous constructs connected to it. The rules of thumb for acceptable R2 scores, according to Henseler et al. [65] are 0.75, 0.50, and 0.25 for substantial, moderate, and weak levels of predictive accuracy, respectively.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the outcomes of this study back up Li and Azizi Bahauddin’s study [13], which found that the physical environment of a preschool stimulates preschool children to participate in outdoor activities. Furthermore, the findings of the researchers show that current NPCS standards do not give suitable techniques for building a physical environment that reflects the NPCS-advocated child-centered pedagogy. In addition, Shaari, et al. [66] stated in their study that more attention should be paid to the appropriateness of spatial planning in preschools in order to accommodate children’s learning behavior.
As it was discovered that Malaysian preschoolers were only moderately prepared for primary school, there is an urgent need for more emphasis to be placed on creating a conducive preschool environment, as this would have a significant impact on the quality of activity spaces and subsequent cognitive development of the preschoolers.
The findings of the aforementioned recent studies would help service providers, educators, built environment designers, and policymakers make decisions about children’s physical environments in preschools.
One limitation of this study is the small sample size of 62 respondents, which resulted in poor model fit. Model fit could be improved by using bootstrapping function with 1000 iterations to yield SRMR = 0.098 at 95% for the saturated model. This shows that the study should be replicated by adopting an improved questionnaire with distinct indicators using a larger sample size collected from the various states in Malaysia to assess the model fit by checking the SRMR, NFI, and RMS_theta. This is due to the fact that the NFI value is sensitive to small sample sizes [63].
By using the indicators in subscale 12 and subscale 13 of the Children’s Physical Environments Rating Scale (CPERS5), this study for the first time proposes a conceptual model to explore and establish the causal effects of outdoor play on their outcomes through empirical evidence. The significant paths and high R2 values in the final conceptual model could help to elucidate and provide an understanding of the relationships among the six constructs, and the causal effects of outdoor play on academic learning of preschool children.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.M.K. and W.C.Y.; methodology, S.M.K., W.C.Y. and A.H.A.; validation, W.C.Y. and S.M.K.; formal analysis, S.M.K., W.C.Y. and A.H.A.; investigation, S.M.K. and G.R.Y.; resources, S.M.K. and W.C.Y.; data curation, S.M.K. and G.R.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, S.M.K., W.C.Y. and G.R.Y.; writing—review and editing, W.C.Y., S.M.K. and A.H.A.; funding acquisition, W.C.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The APC was funded by MPOB-UKM Endowment Chair, Research Grant number: EP-2019-054.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

This study was carried out from June to July 2021, and the authors are grateful to everyone who helped with the research, especially the assistants and participants.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Johnson, J.E.; Christie, J.F.; Yawkey, T.D. Play and Early Childhood Development; Longman: New York, NY, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  2. Hirsh-Pasek, K.; Zosh, J.M.; Golinkoff, R.M.; Gray, J.H.; Robb, M.B.; Kaufman, J. Putting education in “educational” apps: Lessons from the science of learning. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 2015, 16, 3–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Chi, M.T.H. Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Top. Cogn. Sci. 2009, 1, 73–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Csibra, G.; Gergely, G. Natural pedagogy. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2009, 13, 148–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Hargrave, A.C.; Sénéchal, M. A book reading intervention with preschool children who have limited vocabularies: The benefits of regular reading and dialogic reading. Early Child. Res. Q. 2000, 15, 75–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sumerling, B. A Place to play: An exploration of people’s connection to local greenspace in East Leeds. In Conscious Cities; The Center For Conscious Design: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ärlemalm-Hagsér, E.; Elliott, S. Outdoor Play and Learning in Early Childhood Education. Available online: https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756810/obo-9780199756810-0273.xml (accessed on 30 December 2021).
  8. Johnson, J.; Christie, J.; Wardle, F. Play, Development and Early Education; Allyn and Bacon: Boston, MA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  9. Mustafa, M.C.; Wong, K.T.; Abdullah, N.; Rahmatullah, B.; Omar, J.; Samuri, S.M.; Yasin, S.M. Educationists’ voice on quality early childhood care and education in Malaysia. Int. J. Innov. Creat. Chang. 2019, 10, 123–138. [Google Scholar]
  10. Ministry of Education. National Preschool Standard-Based Curriculum, Curriculum Development Division, Ministry of Education Malaysia; Ministry of Education: Putrajaya, Malaysia, 2017.
  11. Burriss, K.; Burriss, L. Outdoor play and learning: Policy and practice. Int. J. Educ. Policy Leadersh. 2011, 8, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Shaari, M.F.; Ahmad, S.S. Physical learning environment: Impact on children school readiness in Malaysian preschools. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 222, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Lim, P.L.P.; Bahauddin, A. Contextual appropriateness: Reflections on learning culture, policy and physical environment of preschools in Malaysia. Int. Trans. J. Eng. Manag. Appl. Sci. Technol. 2019, 10, 10A19E. [Google Scholar]
  14. Puteh, S.N.; Ali, A. Preschool teachers’ perceptions towards the use of play-based approach in language and literacy development for preschool. Malays. J. Learn. Instr. 2014, 10, 79–98. [Google Scholar]
  15. Acar, H. Learning environments for children in outdoor spaces. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 141, 846–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Aziz, N.F.; Said, I. Outdoor environments as children’s play spaces: Playground affordances, Play and Recreation. Health Wellbeing 2016, 9, 87–108. [Google Scholar]
  17. Moore, G.T. The Children’s Physical Environment Rating Scale (CPERS5), 5th ed.; Environment, Behaviour & Society Research Group, University of Sydney: Sydney, Australia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  18. Lee, S.T.; Wong, J.E.; Ong, W.W.; Ismail, M.N.; Deurenberg, P.; Poh, B.K. Physical Activity Pattern of Malaysian Preschoolers: Environment, Barriers, and Motivators for Active Play. Asia Pac. J. Public Health 2016, 28, 21S–34S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Moore, G.T.; Sugiyama, T. The Children’s Physical Environment Rating Scale (CPERS): Reliability and validity for assessing the physical environment of early childhood educational facilities. Child. Youth Environ. 2007, 17, 24–53. [Google Scholar]
  20. Moore, G.T.; Sugiyama, T.; O’Donnell, L. Children’s physical environments rating scale. In Children: The Core of Society, Proceedings of the Australian Early Childhood Association Biennial Conference; Environment, Behaviour & Society Research Group, Faculty of Architecture, The University of Sydney: Sydney, Australia, 2003; pp. 73–81. [Google Scholar]
  21. Shaari, M.F.; Ahmad, S.S.; Ismail, I.S.; Zaiki, Y. Preschool physical environment design quality: Addressing Malaysia’s PISA rankings. Asian J. Environ. Behav. Stud. 2020, 5, 45–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Whitebread, D.; Neale, D.; Jensen, H.; Liu, C.; Solis, S.L.; Hopkins, E.; Zosh, J. The Role of Play in Children’s Development: A Review of the Evidence; LEGO Fonden: Billund, Danmark, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  23. Braden, K. Creating the Optimal Early Childhood Environment: Research-Based Ideas and Suggestions; Degree Project; Murray State University: Murray, KY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  24. Tovey, H. Playing Outdoors: Spaces and Places, Risk and Challenge; Open University Press, McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  25. Wilson, C. Effective Approaches to Connect Children with Nature; Department of Conservation: Wellington, New Zealand, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  26. Saleh, S.F.; Latip, N.S.A.; Rahim, A.A. Assessment of learning with nature in preschool, Planning Malaysia. J. Malays. Inst. Plan. 2018, 16, 46–56. [Google Scholar]
  27. Yildirim, G.; Özyilmaz Akamca, G. The effect of outdoor learning activities on the development of preschool children. S. Afr. J. Educ. 2017, 37, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Aziz, N.F.; Said, I. The trends and influential factors of children’s use of outdoor environments: A review. Asian J. Environ. Behav. Stud. 2017, 2, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Azlina, W.; Zulkiflee, A.S. A pilot study: The impact of outdoor play spaces on kindergarten children. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 38, 275–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Goodling, B.H. Exploring the Outdoors: A Multiple Case Study Examining Teacher Beliefs and Practices in Preschool Outdoor Play. Ph.D. Thesis, Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA, USA, November 2016. [Google Scholar]
  31. Bernama. Childhood Obesity: A Growing Health Crisis in Malaysia, New Straits Times. 2019. Available online: https://www.nst.com.my/lifestyle/heal/2019/07/502533/childhood-obesity-growing-health-crisis-malaysia (accessed on 6 March 2021).
  32. Starcom. Stunting in Children Still a Problem in Malaysia, Star (9 August 2019). Available online: https://www.thestar.com.my/lifestyle/family/2019/08/09/stunting-in-children-problem-malaysia (accessed on 6 March 2021).
  33. Gubbels, J.S.; Van Kann, D.H.H.; Jansen, M.W.J. Play equipment, physical activity opportunities and children’s activity levels at childcare. J. Environ. Public Health 2012, 2012, 326520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Thomas, F.; Harding, S. The role of play: Play outdoors as the medium and mechanism for well-being, learning and development. In Outdoor Provision in the Early Years; Sage Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  35. Ahmad, S.; Ch, A.H.; Batool, A.; Sittar, K.; Malik, M. Play and cognitive development: Formal operational perspective of Piaget’s theory. J. Educ. Pract. 2016, 7, 72–79. [Google Scholar]
  36. McClintic, S.; Petty, K. Exploring early childhood teachers’ beliefs and practices about preschool outdoor play: A qualitative study. J. Early Child. Teach. Educ. 2015, 36, 24–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sadiku, M.N.O.; Ashaolu, T.J.; Musa, S.M. Naturalistic intelligence. Int. J. Sci. Adv. 2020, 1, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Padulo, J.; Bragazzi, N.L.; De Giorgio, A.; Grgantov, Z.; Prato, S.; Ardigò, L.P. The effect of physical activity on cognitive performance in an Italian elementary school: Insights from a pilot study using structural equation modelling. Front. Physiol. 2019, 10, 202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Kemple, K.M.; Oh, J.H.; Kenney, E.; Smith-Bonahue, T. The power of outdoor play and play in natural environments. Child. Educ. 2016, 92, 446–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. White, J. Capturing the Difference: The Special Nature of the Outdoors. In OUTDOOR Provision in the Early Years; Sage Publication: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  41. Emen, M.; Aslan, D. The relationship between perspective taking skills and language development in preschool children. J. Educ. Educ. Dev. 2019, 6, 25–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Burdette, H.L.; Whitaker, R.C. Resurrecting free play in young children: Looking beyond fitness and fatness to attention, affiliation, and affect. Arch. Paediatr. Adolesc. Med. 2005, 159, 46–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Van Hoorn, J.; Nourot, P.M.; Scales, B.; Alward, K.R. Play at the Center of the Curriculum, 6th ed.; Pearson: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  44. Masnan, A.H.; Hanafi, H.F.; Zain, A.; Mohd-Taib, F.S. The Development of Preschool Nature Education Module (PreNEM) for Preschool Teachers Based on Higher Order Thinking Skills. Indones. J. Islamic Early Child. Educ. 2020, 5, 27–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wilson, R.A. Nature and Young Children: Encouraging Creative Play and Learning in Natural Environments; Routledge: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  46. Yunus, F. Changing curriculum practice in early childhood education setting: An action research to enhance authentic assessment. Adv. Soc. Sci. Res. J. 2017, 4, 48–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. PLANMalaysia. Garis Panduan Perancangan dan Penubuhan Tadika dan Taska 2017, Jabatan Perancangan Bandar dan Desa, Kementerian Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan, Malaysia; PLANMalaysia: Putrajaya, Malaysia, 2017.
  48. Conn-Powers, M.; Cross, A.F.; Traub, E.K.; Hutter-Pishgahi, L. The Universal Design of Early Education: Moving forward for All Children. 2006. Available online: https://fpg.unc.edu (accessed on 31 December 2021).
  49. Álvarez-Bueno, C.; Pesce, C.; Cavero-Redondo, I.; Sánchez-López, M.; Garrido-Miguel, M.; Martínez-Vizcaíno, V. Academic achievement and physical activity: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics 2017, 140, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. DeBord, K.; Hestenes, L.; Moore, R.; Cosco, N.; McGinnis, J. Preschool Outdoor Environment Measurement Scale (POEMS); Kaplan Early Learning: Winston-Salem, NC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  51. Muela, A.; Larrea, I.; Miranda, N.; Barandiaran, A. Improving the quality of preschool outdoor environments: Getting children involved. Eur. Early Child. Educ. Res. J. 2019, 27, 385–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. Testing measurement invariance of composites using partial least squares. Int. Mark. Rev. 2016, 33, 405–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wu, P.; Zhao, X.; Baller, J.H.; Wang, X. Developing a conceptual framework to improve the implementation of 3D printing technology in the construction industry. Archit. Sci. Rev. 2018, 61, 133–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Cronbach, L.J. Test validation. In Educational Measurement, 2nd ed.; Thorndike, R., Ed.; American Council on Education: Washington, DC, USA, 1971. [Google Scholar]
  55. Gefen, D.; Straub, D.W.; Boudreau, M.C. Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2000, 4, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, 3rd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  57. Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1988, 16, 74–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Premier on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  60. Chin, W.W. The Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modeling. In Modern Business Research Methods; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  61. Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychol. Methods 1998, 3, 424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bentler, P.M.; Bonett, D.G. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol. Bull. 1980, 88, 588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ramayah, T.; Cheah, J.; Chuah, F.; Ting, H.; Memon, M.A. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) Using SmartPLS 3.0; Pearson: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  64. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, MI, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  65. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sinkovics, R.R. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In New Challenges to International Marketing; Sinkovics, R.R., Ghauri, P.N., Eds.; Emerald Group: Bingley, UK, 2009; pp. 277–319. [Google Scholar]
  66. Shaari, M.F.; Zaiki, Y.; Ahmad, S.S.; Ismail, I.S. The influence of modified open-plan preschool spaces on Congnitive School Readiness in Malaysia. Environ.-Behav. Proc. J. 2020, 5, 123–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Conceptual framework with AVE values in each construct, path loadings, and p values.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework with AVE values in each construct, path loadings, and p values.
Sustainability 14 03365 g001
Figure 2. Conceptual model with AVE value in each construct, path loadings, and p values.
Figure 2. Conceptual model with AVE value in each construct, path loadings, and p values.
Sustainability 14 03365 g002
Figure 3. Final conceptual model with AVE value in each construct, path loadings, and p values.
Figure 3. Final conceptual model with AVE value in each construct, path loadings, and p values.
Sustainability 14 03365 g003
Table 1. Requirements specified to support the space environment in preschools.
Table 1. Requirements specified to support the space environment in preschools.
ItemsRequirements
Comfort environment
  • Children’s comfort must be taken into consideration in the arrangement and the design of the building.
  • The built environment of preschools must be spacious enough to encourage children to play (move freely).
Minimum space requirement for children
  • Internal space area: At least 15 square feet for each child (1.4 m2).
  • External space area: At least total 538 square feet (50 m2).
Universal Design (UD)
  • UD is required to refer before planning the preschools environments.
  • There is a must to incorporate UD and the appropriate indoors building elements that are suitable for children.
  • Designing appropriate means of escape according to children’s abilities is necessary, especially fire escape staircase and the position of staircase handrails.
  • Provide a play area either indoors or outdoors for children in which the play area must have sufficient daylighting.
Table 2. Demographic information of respondents (n = 70).
Table 2. Demographic information of respondents (n = 70).
VariableResponse CategoryNumberPercentage (%)Total Percentage (%)
GenderMale1318.6100
Female5781.4
Age21–3057.14100
31–401014.29
41–502941.43
51–602637.14
>60 years old00.00
Years of experience operating preschools5 years or less1521.4100
6–10 years912.9
11–15 years2028.6
16–20 years1521.4
>20 years1115.7
Number of preschools operated by respondents12637.1100
22434.3
31115.7
4 and above912.9
Table 3. Outdoor play and outdoor play yard in preschool (n = 70).
Table 3. Outdoor play and outdoor play yard in preschool (n = 70).
StatementResponse CategoryNumberPercentage (%)
Is outdoor play important to children’s development?Yes70100.0
No00.0
Does your preschool implement outdoor play for children’s learning?Yes6288.6
No811.4
Is suitable outdoor play space essential to support outdoor play experience?Yes70100.0
No00.0
Does your preschool own an outdoor play yard for children’s learning?Yes6288.6
No811.4
Table 4. Importance of outdoor play to children (n = 62).
Table 4. Importance of outdoor play to children (n = 62).
ConstructIndicatorMeanStandard DeviationOverall MeanRanking
DescriptionSymbol
Health and physical developmentChildren are more likely to be activeP2Q44.6770.4674.4204
Reduce obesity among childrenP2Q54.0810.809
Prevent children from being overweightP2Q64.1910.800
Good for physical growthP2Q74.7260.447
Cognitive developmentDevelop imaginationP2Q84.3550.8054.5392
Have a chance to interact with natureP2Q94.7260.481
Enhance brain memoryP2Q104.4030.750
Improve children’s senses of sights, sounds, smells and touchP2Q114.4840.615
Promote in recognizing the surroundings such as plants, animals and building structuresP2Q124.7260.481
Social and emotional developmentHave more communicationP2Q134.6940.4954.6401
Children have more freedom to express themselvesP2Q144.8390.409
Easy to make friendsP2Q154.5320.615
Children are more confident and positiveP2Q164.4840.641
Cooperation is learned when children are playing with each otherP2Q174.5810.525
More feelings such as understanding, empathy are easier to developP2Q184.4350.612
Children are happierP2Q194.9190.326
Academic learningChildren can be fast learners in classP2Q204.4030.7064.4363
Children learn how to speak and behave wellP2Q214.1610.807
Learning becomes more meaningful and enjoyableP2Q224.5650.612
Children are more creativeP2Q234.6130.605
Table 5. Functional and development needs of play yards (n = 62).
Table 5. Functional and development needs of play yards (n = 62).
ConstructIndicatorMeanStandard Deviation
DescriptionSymbol
Functional NeedsThe play yards have both sunny and shady areas.P3Q12.7101.098
The play yards allow mobility for children using wheelchairs or crutches (e.g., wide and hard paths, smooth ground surfaces, gentle slopes and ramps, etc.).P3Q21.8711.100
Some of the play yard is open and largely flat.P3Q32.5001.118
There is a large accessible storage room for outdoor play equipment.P3Q42.1291.085
There is a sandpit with a partial shade cover.P3Q52.2581.269
There are roofed outdoor areas that protect children’s activities in most local weather conditions (e.g., heat, rain, etc.).P3Q62.5321.146
Development NeedsThe play yard(s) provides enough diversity, such as a variety of surfaces for different types of play, to be interesting for children (e.g., grass, hard surfaces, sand, etc.).P3Q72.2741.124
The play yards have both large and small areas for children to play.P3Q82.4351.145
The play yards have space for social and fantasy play (e.g., quiet areas away from physical play, cubby house, outdoor playhouse, storage for dress-up props, etc.).P3Q92.2901.022
Some of the play yards are smaller and have a friendly feeling (e.g., intimate character, natural elements, etc.).P3Q102.3551.109
Some of the play yards contain shape structures that are safe yet challenging enough for children to play on.P3Q112.4350.994
Secret or rest places exist for a child to take time to be alone yet within sight of adults.P3Q122.1941.281
There is a garden that children help to maintain.P3Q131.8231.185
There is an identifiable area for outdoor water play (e.g., outdoor water table, tap, sprinklers, natural ponds, etc.).P3Q141.9351.469
Table 6. Path loadings for conceptual framework (9 males, 53 females, n = 62; CI = 95%).
Table 6. Path loadings for conceptual framework (9 males, 53 females, n = 62; CI = 95%).
PathOriginal SampleStandard Deviationt Statisticsp ValuesDecision on Path
LoadingMean
1. Functional Needs → Development Needs0.9160.9180.01561.4180.000Retained
2. Social and Emotional Development → Health & Physical Development0.7400.7620.05613.1710.000Retained
3. Cognitive Development → Academic Learning0.6650.6620.0957.0030.000Retained
4. Social and Emotional Development → Academic Learning0.3870.3820.1103.5270.000Retained
5. Development Needs → Social and Emotional Development0.3050.3320.1322.3030.021Retained
6. Development Needs → Cognitive Development0.1760.1400.1171.5050.133Retained after reanalysis
7. Health and Physical Development → Cognitive Development0.3410.2750.2401.4190.156
8. Social and Emotional Development → Cognitive Development0.3530.4510.3241.0910.276Removed
9. Development Needs → Academic Learning−0.061−0.0650.0521.1610.246Removed
10. Health and Physical Development → Academic Learning−0.081−0.0740.1020.7950.427Removed
11. Development Needs → Health and Physical Development0.0570.0410.0950.6000.548Removed
Table 7. Path loadings for conceptual model (9 males, 53 females, n = 62; CI = 95%).
Table 7. Path loadings for conceptual model (9 males, 53 females, n = 62; CI = 95%).
PathOriginal SampleSample MeanStandard Deviationt Statisticsp ValuesDecision on Relationship
1. Functional Needs → Development Needs0.9150.9170.01560.3700.000Significant
2. Social and Emotional Development → Health & Physical Development0.7620.7770.04417.3170.000Significant
3. Cognitive Development → Academic Learning0.6300.6300.0837.6230.000Significant
4. Social and Emotional Development → Academic Learning0.3290.3280.0953.4590.001Significant
5. Development Needs → Social and Emotional Development0.2960.3120.1312.2580.024Significant
6. Development Needs → Cognitive Development0.1990.2020.0932.1110.033Significant
7. Health and Physical Development → Cognitive Development0.5970.6010.0966.1890.000Significant
Table 8. Assessment results of measurement models (n = 62; CI = 95%).
Table 8. Assessment results of measurement models (n = 62; CI = 95%).
Name of ConstructIndicatorsOuter Loadings
(>0.50)
Outer WeightsOuter Collinearity
(For Formative Model)
(<5.0)
Construct Reliability and Validity
Cronbach’s Alpha
(>0.707)
Rho_AComposite Reliability
(>0.50, <0.90)
AVE
(≥0.50)
Functional NeedsP3Q10.9220.2575.6950.8650.8850.9010.606
P3Q20.5810.1391.464
P3Q30.8430.2234.865
P3Q40.7940.1952.486
P3Q50.7680.2332.049
P3Q60.7190.2242.257
Development NeedsP3Q70.8140.1753.1640.9330.9410.9450.682
P3Q80.8910.1783.887
P3Q90.8190.1332.857
P3Q100.8180.1642.408
P3Q110.8750.1633.814
P3Q120.8440.1483.517
P3Q130.7670.1372.521
P3Q140.7660.1072.526
Health and Physical DevelopmentP2Q40.7910.3155.7040.7900.7950.8640.613
P2Q50.7940.3544.819
P2Q60.8200.3244.649
P2Q70.7240.2825.541
Cognitive DevelopmentP2Q80.7470.2352.0540.8330.8360.8830.603
P2Q90.8020.2592.092
P2Q100.8300.2622.866
P2Q110.8110.2782.393
P2Q120.6820.2561.816
Social and Emotional DevelopmentP2Q130.8190.2032.9940.8560.9000.8900.545
P2Q140.6230.1262.273
P2Q150.8680.2275.678
P2Q160.8770.2626.233
P2Q170.5530.1542.228
P2Q180.8090.2412.937
P2Q190.5210.0931.625
Academic LearningP2Q200.7920.2911.9790.8540.8610.9010.696
P2Q210.8560.3352.459
P2Q220.8720.3103.682
P2Q230.8150.2623.048
Table 9. Discriminant validity using Fornell and Larcker criterion.
Table 9. Discriminant validity using Fornell and Larcker criterion.
ConstructFunctional NeedsDevelopment NeedsHealth and Physical DevelopmentCognitive DevelopmentSocial and Emotional DevelopmentAcademic Learning
Functional Needs0.779
Development Needs0.9150.826
Health and Physical Development0.2330.2820.783
Cognitive Development0.2750.3670.6530.776
Social and Emotional Development0.2360.2960.7620.6530.738
Academic Learning0.2130.2740.6250.8450.7410.834
Table 10. Discriminant validity using cross loadings.
Table 10. Discriminant validity using cross loadings.
IndicatorAcademic LearningCognitive DevelopmentDevelopment NeedsFunctional NeedsHealth and Physical DevelopmentSocial and Emotional Development
P2Q40.0320.4290.2920.2800.7910.650
P2Q50.6630.6850.1920.1550.7940.557
P2Q60.5370.5690.1180.0740.8200.559
P2Q70.3270.3230.2970.2350.7240.634
P2Q80.6640.7470.4430.4000.3010..413
P2Q90.7060.8020.3040.2970.4300.446
P2Q100.6670.8300.3170.2100.4980.543
P2Q110.5920.8110.3100.1740.7050.636
P2Q120.6550.6820.0600.0050.5660.475
P2Q130.6530.6410.2720.2110.4690.819
P2Q140.2670.1740.2610.3390.3930.623
P2Q150.6440.5700.1820.0940.6580.868
P2Q160.7100.7220.2390.1360.7840.877
P2Q170.4330.3280.1750.1430.4310.553
P2Q180.6590.5360.3090.2780.6750.809
P2Q190.1890.0340.0310.0470.3580.521
P2Q200.7920.7030.2970.2290.3860.555
P2Q210.8560.7580.2890.2600.5930.737
P2Q220.8720.7420.1630.1150.6050.604
P2Q230.8150.6020.1520.0900.4860.558
P3Q10.2790.2820.8470.9220.2510.284
P3Q20.0860.1630.4590.5810.0140.093
P3Q30.2100.2000.7350.8430.2250.236
P3Q40.2650.2640.6450.7940.1920.163
P3Q5−0.0370.1090.7680.7680.1040.073
P3Q60.1760.2630.7410.7190.2470.217
P3Q70.5740.5790.8140.7300.2730.403
P3Q80.2620.3800.8910.8590.2680.296
P3Q9−0.0010.0850.8190.7620.2080.112
P3Q100.2650.3040.8180.8090.2810.288
P3Q110.3280.3560.8750.7880.1810.271
P3Q120.0740.1710.8440.7820.3320.219
P3Q130.1910.3550.7670.6430.2570.220
P3Q14−0.0740.0460.7660.634−0.0120.039
(Note: Loadings for their own constructs are in bold).
Table 11. Assessment results of structural model (n = 62; CI = 95%).
Table 11. Assessment results of structural model (n = 62; CI = 95%).
ItemSaturated ModelEstimated Model
Original ModelSample Mean95%99%Original ModelSample Mean95%99%
SRMR (≤0.10)0.1320.0810.0980.1040.1340.0930.1140.130
NFI (≥0.90)0.373 0.373
Table 12. Discriminant validity of final conceptual model using cross loadings.
Table 12. Discriminant validity of final conceptual model using cross loadings.
IndicatorAcademic LearningCognitive DevelopmentDevelopment NeedsFunctional NeedsHealth & Physical DevelopmentSocial & Emotional Development
P2Q40.4090.3930.2640.2800.6470.579
P2Q50.6990.6070.2090.1740.9070.552
P2Q60.5540.5270.1220.0420.9080.538
P2Q90.5670.8030.4370.4090.3530.364
P2Q100.6140.9160.3320.2170.5640.523
P2Q110.5650.8350.3120.1260.6490.547
P2Q130.6010.6380.2790.2030.4520.792
P2Q140.2560.1190.2480.2920.3470.638
P2Q150.6220.6040.1650.0690.5750.797
P2Q170.5410.2570.2000.1940.4590.651
P2Q180.7080.5180.2990.3570.6510.859
P2Q190.184−0.0390.0290.0410.2950.544
P2Q210.8540.7360.2790.3480.6190.731
P2Q220.9170.5650.1670.1530.6460.605
P2Q230.8400.4170.1630.0990.4810.541
P3Q10.2520.3040.8220.9480.2110.307
P3Q20.0840.1790.4340.635−0.0190.108
P3Q30.2210.2330.7280.9260.1990.283
P3Q40.2500.2250.6350.8320.2090.195
P3Q70.5070.5800.8180.6760.2690.381
P3Q80.2480.4280.9040.8000.2570.323
P3Q9−0.0180.1930.8210.6780.1800.136
P3Q110.3200.3160.8740.6910.1390.271
P3Q120.0650.2410.8550.6430.2830.218
P3Q130.1940.3710.7740.5690.2380.246
P3Q14−0.1220.1590.7660.505−0.0930.042
(Note: Loadings for their own constructs are in bold).
Table 13. Discriminant validity of final conceptual model using Fornell and Larcker criterion.
Table 13. Discriminant validity of final conceptual model using Fornell and Larcker criterion.
ConstructFunctional NeedsDevelopment NeedsHealth and Physical DevelopmentCognitive DevelopmentSocial and Emotional DevelopmentAcademic Learning
Functional Needs0.844
Development Needs0.7960.831
Health and Physical Development0.1960.2380.830
Cognitive Development0.2840.4180.6220.853
Social and Emotional Development0.2790.2990.6710.5670.722
Academic Learning0.2500.2430.6790.6820.7340.871
Table 14. Discriminant validity of final conceptual model using Heterotrait-Monotrait Criterion.
Table 14. Discriminant validity of final conceptual model using Heterotrait-Monotrait Criterion.
ConstructFunctional NeedsDevelopment NeedsHealth and Physical DevelopmentCognitive DevelopmentSocial and Emotional DevelopmentAcademic Learning
Development Needs0.860
CI = 90%
(0.774, 0.928)
Health and Physical Development0.2870.323
CI = 90%CI = 90%
(0.138, 0.441)(0.184, 0.493)
Cognitive Development0.3490.4590.778
CI = 90%CI = 90%CI = 90%
(0.197, 0.512)(0.315, 0.618)(0.613, 0.891)
Social and Emotional Development0.3140.3090.8220.617
CI = 90%CI = 90%CI = 90%CI = 90%
(0.171, 0.546)(0.156, 0.539)(0.674, 0.985)(0.358, 0.954)
Academic Learning0.2650.2950.8270.7930.792
CI = 90%CI = 90%CI = 90%CI = 90%CI = 90%
(0.131, 0.414)(0.187, 0.359)(0.683, 0.939)(0.637, 0.930)(0.653, 0.975)
Table 15. Lateral collinearity assessment of final conceptual model.
Table 15. Lateral collinearity assessment of final conceptual model.
ConstructFunctional NeedsDevelopment NeedsSocial and Emotional DevelopmentCognitive DevelopmentHealth and Physical DevelopmentAcademic Learning
Functional Needs 1.000
Development Needs 1.0001.060
Social and Emotional Development 1.0001.473
Cognitive Development 1.473
Health and Physical Development 1.060
Table 16. Model fit of final conceptual model.
Table 16. Model fit of final conceptual model.
ItemSaturated ModelEstimated Model
Original ModelSample Mean95%99%Original ModelSample Mean95%99%
SRMR (≤0.10)0.1250.0790.0980.1080.1270.0920.1160.125
NFI (≥0.90)0.486 0.484
Table 17. Path loadings for final conceptual model (n = 62; CI = 95%).
Table 17. Path loadings for final conceptual model (n = 62; CI = 95%).
PathOriginal SampleSample MeanStandard Deviationt Statisticsp ValuesCausal
Relationship
Effect Size,
f2
1. Functional Needs → Development Needs0.7960.8050.04219.0360.000Significant1.734
(p = 0.004)
2. Social & Emotional Development → Health and Physical Development0.6710.6960.06210.8300.000Significant0.810
(p = 0.049)
3. Cognitive Development → Academic Learning0.3930.3380.1562.5200.012Significant0.294
(p = 0.258)
4. Social and Emotional Development → Academic Learning0.5110.5690.1174.3560.000Significant0.497
(p = 0.007)
5. Development Needs → Social and Emotional Development0.2990.3250.1382.1730.030Significant0.098
(p = 0.481)
6. Development Needs → Cognitive Development0.2860.2840.0793.6000.000Significant0.144
(p = 0.086)
7. Health and Physical Development → Cognitive Development0.5540.5640.0906.1380.000Significant0.499 (p = 0.061)
Table 18. R square and adjusted R square for final conceptual model (n = 62; CI = 95%).
Table 18. R square and adjusted R square for final conceptual model (n = 62; CI = 95%).
R SquareAdjusted R Square
ConstructOriginal Samplet Statisticsp ValuesOriginal Samplet Statisticsp Values
Development Needs0.634 ##9.5100.0000.628 ##9.2640.000
Social & Emotional Development0.089 #0.9730.3310.074 #0.7940.427
Cognitive Development0.464 ##6.4090.0000.446 ##5.9560.000
Health & Physical Development0.450 ##5.1950.0000.441 ##5.0060.000
Academic Learning0.643 ##11.6990.0000.631 ##11.1030.000
Note: ## = moderate, # = weak [59].
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yew, W.C.; Kong, S.M.; Awang, A.H.; Yi, G.R. Developing a Conceptual Model for the Causal Effects of Outdoor Play in Preschools Using PLS-SEM. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3365. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063365

AMA Style

Yew WC, Kong SM, Awang AH, Yi GR. Developing a Conceptual Model for the Causal Effects of Outdoor Play in Preschools Using PLS-SEM. Sustainability. 2022; 14(6):3365. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063365

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yew, Wong Chin, Sia Mal Kong, Abd Hair Awang, and Goh Rou Yi. 2022. "Developing a Conceptual Model for the Causal Effects of Outdoor Play in Preschools Using PLS-SEM" Sustainability 14, no. 6: 3365. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063365

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop