Next Article in Journal
A Small Country with Big Ambitions: Does This Include the Gifted?
Previous Article in Journal
“FLIPPED ASSESSMENT”: Proposal for a Self-Assessment Method to Improve Learning in the Field of Manufacturing Technologies
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 13
Issue 8
10.3390/educsci13080830
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Quality of the Opportunities for Preschoolers’ Physical Activity in Portuguese Kindergartens

by
Mariana Moreira
1,*,
Guida Veiga
2,3,
Frederico Lopes
4,
Derek Hales
5 and
Rita Cordovil
1
1
Interdisciplinary Centre for the Study of Human Performance (CIPER), Faculdade de Motricidade Humana, Universidade de Lisboa, 1499-002 Lisbon, Portugal
2
Departamento de Desporto e Saúde, Escola de Saúde e Desenvolvimento Humano, Universidade de Évora, 7004-516 Évora, Portugal
3
Comprehensive Health Research Centre (CHRC), Universidade de Évora, 7004-516 Évora, Portugal
4
Laboratory of Motor Behavior, Faculdade de Motricidade Humana, Universidade de Lisboa, 1499-002 Lisboa, Portugal
5
Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27514, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2023, 13(8), 830; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13080830
Submission received: 7 July 2023 / Revised: 2 August 2023 / Accepted: 3 August 2023 / Published: 15 August 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Early Childhood Education)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Kindergarten’s physical and social environment influences preschoolers’ physical activity (PA) and impacts their development. This study aimed first to describe the quality of the opportunities provided by the physical attributes and social guidelines to promote PA and, second, to investigate the relationship between design attributes and daily practices to support PA in sixteen Portuguese kindergartens (15 public). The Children’s Physical Environment Rating Scale was used to rate the quality of the design attributes. Sixteen directors and teachers filled out surveys to quantify the equipment available and assess the quality of the written policies and daily practices to promote PA. Correlations between design attributes and daily practices to support PA were analyzed. The results emphasize the need for improvements in indoor settings that facilitate a wide range of gross motor activities for children. Similarly, outdoor environments should be designed to enable play opportunities regardless of weather conditions, encouraging children to engage in diverse and challenging physical activities. Providing more times per year for teachers’ PA training is also necessary. The design attributes and daily practices to support children’s PA were related. In kindergartens with a room only for PA, children spent less time sitting and more time in teacher-led PA. In kindergartens with large and challenging outdoor areas, children engaged in more intense PA. However, having a roofed protection area outdoors was not sufficient to decrease indoor sitting time. These findings highlight the need for ongoing review and assessment of the physical and social environment in kindergartens to ensure preschoolers have the best opportunities for PA.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Children need to be physically active to develop healthily [1,2]. Physical activity (PA) is defined as any bodily movement produced by skeletal muscles that requires energy expenditure (WHO, 2022) [3]. Running, swimming, tumbling, throwing, catching, walking, and participating in interactive play with games and equipment are common types of PA among preschoolers [4]. Kindergartens can positively impact preschoolers’ physical activity (PA) by providing a child-friendly physical environment [5] and by adopting social guidelines that encourage children to practice PA regularly [2] and safely [6]. With a low percentage of preschoolers meeting international guidelines for PA [7], it is vital to understand if the physical environment and social guidelines of kindergartens are focused on facilitating preschoolers’ PA [8].
Children’s PA is highly influenced by the physical and social characteristics of the child and their surroundings. According to Gibson’s affordances theory [9], the perception of the opportunities for action in the environment, or affordances, is dependent on characteristics of the individual (e.g., age, profiles, interests) and the context, namely its physical attributes (e.g., design, places, equipment, surfaces) and social characteristics (e.g., institutional rules, teachers daily practices), which modulate the actions of children [9]. Thus, the exploration of the environment is guided by the fit between child characteristics and the physical and social aspects of their surroundings, which can facilitate or inhibit the children’s use of movement to look for developmentally meaningful actions [10].
Although kindergartens have a strong potential to positively influence preschoolers’ PA, the mere existence of these settings does not guarantee it will happen [11,12]. Indeed, such engagement is highly influenced by the kindergarten physical environment (e.g., design, surfaces, equipment) and social guidelines (e.g., written policies and daily practices) that encourage children to be physically active [13,14,15,16]. Moreover, the physical environment must be planned and designed to adequately support pedagogical guidelines so that teachers feel more supported when leading children to regular moments of physically active play [17,18].
In this work, the physical environment includes both the physical design attributes [19] and the equipment provisions [20]. A child-friendly kindergarten PA environment offers indoor and outdoor design, surfaces, and equipment that invite children to safely engage in a variety of movements and different types of physical activities [5,21,22]. To optimize active play, the design of the kindergarten’s indoor physical environment should include a large indoor multipurpose active playroom or gym [5], with an adequate floor and defined areas for different movements [16] (e.g., tumbling and climbing zones). This area should also provide easy access to equipment and structures that promote a variety of motor skill behaviors [15]. Indoor areas with inadequate acoustic or spatial separation from quiet play activity areas or that include non-portable toys often limit intense body movement activities [5,15].
Concerning the kindergarten outdoor play yard’s physical environment, the design must guarantee an adequate area per child [23], provide a larger outdoor playground [24], have open areas [8], play settings adjacency [13], and define tracks/paths [23] to invite children to physical play. In addition, directors, staff, and designers must provide for safe play spaces, following local, national, and international requirements (e.g., European standards) [6]. That way, children will be able to encounter acceptable risk as part of a stimulating, challenging, and controlled play environment, which is important for them to expand their level of physical competence [25]. Having roofed and shaded areas, drainage systems, and shelters should be planned so children can actively play outdoors all year, even with adverse weather (e.g., rain, snow, wind, full sun) [26,27]. The presence of a variety of play equipment is necessary to stimulate different kinds of physical activities [28]. Both manufactured equipment (e.g., fixed swings or slides) and natural elements (e.g., trees, wood, cliffs, water, grass, and sand) afford active play; however, the natural elements invite more risky play [29]. Portable trampolines [15], large fixed play equipment, areas constructed with climbing, sliding, swinging, and balancing structures [8,24,30], ropes, sand, and hilly terrain [15] have been positively associated with PA in children. The opposite happens in a playground with a hard ground cover (i.e., a concrete play area) and equipment that promotes sitting or little movement (i.e., seesaws [15] and sand tables [30]).
As for kindergarten social guidelines, or the written policies determined by the administration and the daily practices applied by teachers [20], previous studies suggest that preschoolers PA is favored by defined written policies such as providing children with 120 min of active play every day (indoors and outdoors) [31], offering a physical education class each week [32] limiting screen-viewing [33], and training teachers about PA twice a year or more [31,34,35].
Measuring the quality of the kindergarten’s physical environment and social guidelines enables staff, researchers, parents, and policy makers to understand whether the physical attributes, administration-written policies, and teachers’ daily practices are appropriate and harmonized to encourage preschoolers PA [14]. In the last few years, research interest in the influence of the physical environment and social variables influencing children’s PA has grown, with many studies supporting that relationship [8,13,15,16,33,36]. However, the literature continues to highlight the need to conduct research that accurately describes the quality of the kindergarten’s physical environment and social factors to guide educational and political agents to meet the highest quality guidelines to promote children’s PA [20,22,37,38,39]. Such assessment should use scales specifically designed to measure the quality of the kindergarten physical environment and the social variables for PA instead of general measures of more global constructs (e.g., teacher educational background) [40,41]. Considering the importance of the kindergarten environment on children’s healthy development, ongoing monitoring of the physical environment and social guidelines to practice PA, comparing the results with best practice quality indicators, and inquiring about the relation between the physical environment and social guidelines to promote children’s PA is fundamental to guide action and support change. This has become even more important after the negative effect of the COVID-19 lockdown on children’s physical activity and health [42,43].
To the best of our knowledge, no study has yet explored how the physical environment’s design and social guidelines relate to facilitating or constraining children’s PA during the time they spend in kindergarten. Therefore, this study aimed firstly to describe the quality of the physical environment and social guidelines to promote preschoolers’ PA in Portuguese kindergartens, and secondly to investigate the relation between the physical environment and the teacher’s daily practices to promote PA. Regarding the second goal, we hypothesized that in kindergartens with a PA-friendly physical design environment, the daily practices applied by teachers would highly correspond to PA best practices quality scores.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Procedures

In September 2020, the preschool year that started after the COVID-19 lockdown, half of the 72 kindergartens in Gondomar (n = 36), Portugal city, were invited to participate in this study. The sample was selected for convenience but covered kindergartens located in areas with different urbanization characteristics within Gondomar (urban and rural). The researcher scheduled a face-to-face meeting with each kindergarten director to explain the purpose of the study and its procedures. Sixteen directors (15 public and one private) agreed to participate. Most refusals were related to ongoing COVID restrictions. Of the fifteen public kindergartens, thirteen had buildings dedicated for preschoolers and were physically independent of other classroom and administration buildings. The remaining two were integrated into school centers with elementary and preschool services. The private center had nursery, preschool, and elementary school services in one building. In November 2020, the researcher (first author) visited all the kindergartens and carried out an in loco observation to assess the quality of the physical environment’s design attributes. The director and one preschool teacher from each institution were also asked to complete surveys to quantify the presence of physical elements at the kindergartens (equipment, natural elements, and surfaces) and measure the quality of the social guidelines (administration written policies and teachers’ daily practices) to promote children’s PA. All the procedures were conducted according to the Code of Ethics for Early Childhood Researchers (EECERA) [44]. The Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Human Kinetics, University of Lisbon, approved all the study procedures (CEIF Approval Number: 26/2019).

2.2. Instruments

2.2.1. Quality of the Kindergarten’s Physical Environment Design Attributes to Promote PA

The quality of the kindergarten’s physical environment design attributes was scored using the Escala de Avaliação dos Envolvimentos Físicos para Crianças (EAEFC) [45]. This is the Portuguese version of the original Children’s Physical Environments Rating Scale (CPERS5) [46]. The EAEFC is used to assess kindergarten’s indoor and outdoor physical environment design attributes and analyze how they meet the best environmental quality indicators, previously associated with favorable children’s development [47]. The EAEFC includes 124 items divided into 14 subscales and is grouped into 4 parts (For more details, see Moreira et al., 2020 [45]. Depending on the study’s goals, the subscale’s items may be used independently, providing information about specific kindergartens physical design features. For this study, only the 11 items that assess the quality of the indoor/outdoor physical environment design features related to preschoolers PA were used. These include items related to the characteristics of the indoor gym, the appropriateness of the physical motor play area for all gross-motor physical activities, the size of the outdoor play yard, diversity and challenging contours, weather protection, and the characteristics of the building site (see Table 1). Each item was scored on a 0 to 4 scale according to established criteria for compliance with physical environment quality indicators: 0 (Do not comply); 1 (Comply poorly); 2 (Comply fairly); 3 (Comply good); and 4 (Comply with excellence) [46].

2.2.2. Quality of the Kindergarten Physical Elements and Social Guidelines to Promote PA

The Environment and Policy Assessment and Observation-Self-Report (EPAO-sr) [20] was used to assess and quantify the physical elements and social guidelines in the kindergarten setting that promote PA (see Moreira et al. [48] for the Portuguese version). Following the instrument’s procedures, three surveys were distributed: the Director General Survey (to assess the institution’s written policies regarding time and space for PA, training for staff, and parental education), the Teacher General Survey (to assess the elements of the physical environment that promote PA and active play), and the Teacher daily survey (to assess teacher daily practices and time to promote PA).
Items from the three surveys are combined and used to score 13 sub-components (see Table 2). Each subcomponent is scored on a 0 to 3 scale. A score of three indicates the PA’s best practice in this area was met or exceeded [48]. The EPAO-sr PA total score is computed as a simple sum of the 13 sub-component scores and could range from 0 (lower compliance) to 39 (higher compliance) [20]. Items from the EPAO-sr can also be used to summarize time in active play, adult-led PA, and the type of physical activities children are involved in (mostly sitting to mostly vigorous) in the indoor and outdoor areas of the kindergarten [20].

2.3. Data Analysis

The data analysis was carried out by the research team using IBM SPSS Statistics 25. A descriptive analysis (means, standard deviations, minimum and maximum values, and frequencies) was performed for all variables. Due to the small sample size, the Spearman coefficient was used to investigate possible correlations between the physical environment’s design attributes and the social guidelines that promote children’s PA.

3. Results

3.1. Quality of the Kindergarten’s Physical Environment Design Attributes to Promote PA

The summary of the 11 EAEFC items is presented in Table 1. Across the 16 kindergartens observed, two areas were found to have good quality. Consistently high ratings for total outdoor area available for each child to play (M = 3.13, SD = 1.45), and having open and largely flat play areas (M = 2.75, SD = 0.68) were noted. Lower quality scores were found for outdoor weather protection (M = 0.87, SD = 0.81), the variety of surfaces available for children to play on (M = 1.19, SD = 0.98), and the balance between safety and challenging contours (M = 1.00, SD = 0.63). Furthermore, the results showed that the kindergartens failed to have an indoor physical gross motor play area (M = 0.13, SD = 0.50) and had poor quality designs for the physical gross motor play area (M = 0.56, SD = 0.63).

3.2. Quality of the Kindergarten Physical Elements and Social Guidelines to Promote PA

The average total EPAO-sr. PA score was 19.50 ± 4.61 (min. = 12.48, max. = 27.37) out of a maximum possible score of 39. EPAO-sr. summary scores are shown in Table 2. According to the results, the assessed kindergartens showed higher compliance with the best practice indicators for Daily PA practices (44% of sites met best practice) and outdoor playtime and lower compliance regarding teacher training on PA, screen time, and outdoor play and learning (0% met best practice).
Table 3 shows the percentage of kindergartens that offer specific written policies, physical attributes, and portable equipment to promote PA. More than 70% of kindergartens use an activity room or gym to practice PA indoors, but few have adequate space to practice all gross motor activities (GMAs) in the activity room (6.3%) or gym (31.3%). More than 80% of the kindergartens offer one PA class per week to the children. However, only a few (12.5%) ensured that at least 60 min of adult-led PA per day were carried out. Most teachers report access to indoor equipment that could be used for a variety of GMAs but also report that indoor activity levels are just above “sitting” (see Table 4), indicating that access may not equate to consistent use of indoor play equipment. Computers (70.6%) and TVs (64.7%) were common in participating kindergartens, but less than half had written media use policies related to screen time. In the outdoors, few kindergartens had trees and rocks to climb (12.5%), and hills to climb and roll down (6.3%). The slide (81.3%) and the swing (62.5%) were the fixed pieces of equipment most used in the participating kindergartens. The balls, the equipment to jump (68.8%), the loose parts, and the marker items (e.g., cones) (62.5%) were the mobile equipment most used in the assessed kindergartens. Finally, a few kindergartens had a water play area available (6.3%).
A summary of the teacher’s reported daily activities and intensity is shown in Table 4. According to the teacher reports, children spent more time playing outdoors (72.19 min.) than playing actively indoors (28.44 min), with a higher percent of indoor active play classified as teacher-led (56%), compared to only 10% of time outside. Teachers reported about 31 min of seated activities (seated, computer, and TV), which only partially accounts for the average activity level inside, which was “mostly sitting” (2.2 on a 1 to 7 scale). While teachers reported children participating in “mostly moderate activities” (5.3 on a 1 to 7 scale) during outside time.

3.3. Correlation between Physical Environment Design Attributes and Teachers’ Daily Practices to Promote PA

Significant correlations were noted between several physical environment design attributes measured by EAEFC and daily routines reported by teachers in EPAO-sr. surveys. All correlations are presented in Table 5.
Results showed a strong positive correlation between indoor physical gross motor play area rating and minutes in teacher-led activity (rs = 0.64; p = 0.01) and a strong negative correlation between indoor space for doing GMA and time children spend sitting (rs = −0.64; p = 0.01).
The outcomes also revealed positive and moderate correlations between better-quality outdoor spaces, the number of times children went outside, and the types of physical activities children are involved in. Although the findings expressed a negative moderate correlation between having a roofed outdoor play area and the time children spend seeing TV or movies inside (rs = −0.59; p = 0.02), a positive strong correlation occurred between having an outdoor play area with a roofed area and the time children spend sitting indoors (rs = 0.65; p = 0.01).

4. Discussion

This study aimed, firstly, to describe the quality of the opportunities provided by the physical attributes and social guidelines to promote PA and, secondly, to investigate the relationship between the quality of the physical design attributes and existing daily practices to support PA in Portuguese kindergartens.
Having an indoor and outdoor PA-friendly physical environment prompts children to practice PA more frequently and regularly at the kindergarten [13,15,16]. However, indoors, children tend to spend more time sitting [49] and have better opportunities for constructive and fantasy play than for active play [50]. In this study, the presence of some physical design attributes and equipment was identified as facilitating factors to promote higher levels of PA, such as having specific mobile indoor equipment (e.g., tumbling mats, mini tramps, balls, tunnels, and balance toys), enough space for all children to run outside, an open and large outdoor play yard, and outdoor mobile (e.g., loose parts, riding toys, and hula hoops) and fixed equipment (e.g., slides and swings). On the other hand, the absence of some design attributes and equipment could inhibit preschoolers’ PA or make it a challenge for staff to offer adequate PA opportunities. First, we noted scarce conditions indoors for children to engage in a range of GMA and a lack of some mobile equipment indoors (e.g., twirling play equipment, riding toys). In addition, the outdoor environment had limited outdoor weather protection and a lack of variety and diversity in surfaces and natural elements (e.g., hills to climb or roll down and trees and rocks to go up). These identified weaknesses must be carefully reviewed and modified to create a resource-rich environment that encourages higher-quality PA for children, which is vital to facilitating their development [1,2] and learning [51,52].
In most of the evaluated kindergartens, the activity rooms and gyms were used for other pedagogical or care activities (e.g., playing in different play areas; taking a nap or eating) and as multipurpose spaces where children watched TV, played active games, painted, played fantasy, or did puzzles. Not having a space always available and prepared for children to experience all levels of PA, dissuade children from GMAs and vigorous PA [5] In addition, teachers may be afraid that children’s vigorous behaviors are not safe or will damage fragile equipment (e.g., TVs, mirrors, computers with low windows, toys) in these shared spaces, prompting them to limit activities that require a higher intensity of movement. Moreover, when space is limited, teachers may feel hindered from promoting active moments. Indeed, in a previous study, teachers felt that having to rearrange the room for children to engage in PA moments was challenging and tiring [18].
Our findings also showed the need for more equipment and natural elements that invite children to engage in more challenging or “risky” motor behaviors outdoors. This type of physicality—climbing, jumping from safe heights, balancing, sliding, running fast, or cycling on varied terrain—motivates children to experience different body abilities in their physical active play [53,54], which likely improves the quality of their movement and gives them the confidence to explore their surroundings through movement [34,55,56,57]. Such experiences seem to be critical for preschoolers, where the body is a vehicle to feel, interact [58], learn [51,52], and affect other bodies and materials and be affected by them within playful encounters [59,60]. Indeed, many children prefer outdoor designs that allow for variation in movement and controlled “risk” taking [55,56].
Regarding the social guidelines, or policies, that can influence children’s PA, outcomes helped identify several written policies with higher compliance to the best practice standards for PA, namely the daily promotion of PA (e.g., including PA in routines and transitions) and outdoor play time (e.g., children have appropriate clothes to go outdoor in all seasons). However, compliance with best practice policies was lower for teacher trainings on PA, screen time, and outdoor and play learning topics. Furthermore, many kindergartens do not have policies that meet best practice standards for adult-led PA each day or scheduled active play time in the indoor or outdoor spaces.
Our findings suggest that most of the evaluated kindergartens are promoting daily PA in routines and transitions and are reserving adequate time for children to play outdoors. These two strategies are critical to encouraging children to actively explore their bodies and surroundings [39,61]. Even though these policies showed higher compliance with the best PA indicators, they may not be enough to ensure that children engage in vigorous PA or other important GMAs [39]. In fact, according to the responses from the participating teachers, children spend most of their time indoors sitting and most of their time outside in lower-moderate physical activities (e.g., walking). In this sense, children never engaged in particularly vigorous PA (e.g., running) in their mostly used play spaces. These findings highlight an important topic where training, environment, and policy interactions may be essential to optimizing children’s PA behaviors in the kindergarten setting.
Research has shown that teachers with PA training report higher perceived importance and personal responsibility relative to PA teaching [62], facilitating children’s PA during daily kindergarten care [35]. This suggests that providing training and teacher education may be a more effective strategy to increase children’s active behaviors compared to only promoting adult-led PA or costly changes in the physical environment’s design. Through training in PA, teachers will be strengthened to stimulate child movement throughout the day, making them less dependent on specialized PA classes mainly provided by staff external to the institution (e.g., a physical education teacher) [63].
As expected, in kindergartens with an indoor and outdoor PA-friendly physical environment, the daily PA practices were better and more likely to meet best practice recommendations. While the correlations do not imply causality, they indicate that in kindergartens where indoor spaces allowed children to engage freely in a range of physical activities, children spent less time sitting and more time in teacher-led PA. In addition, in kindergartens that had more outdoor time, more natural elements and surface variation, small and large areas to play outdoors, and a safe and challenging design, teachers reported that children engaged in more intense physical activities while in the outdoor play yards. It is important to note that having a roofed protection area seems not to be sufficient to decrease indoor sitting time. This finding might suggest that the promotion of PA in kindergartens implies a combination of optimal physical environment design, administration-written policies, and teacher training.
These findings emphasize the ecological theoretical premise that the physical and social environment act together to promote or constrain children’s PA [9,10]. Moreover, our study outcomes support what has been previously suggested in theoretical expositions and qualitative studies [17,18] by objectively demonstrating that the physical environment should be designed to adequately support teachers as they guide children to engage in regular PA.

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions

To our best knowledge, our study is the first to objectively characterize the quality of the physical and social environment to promote preschoolers’ PA at the kindergartens in Gondomar and is also one of the first to investigate the relationship between physical environment design attributes and social guidelines in these early educational settings. While the precision and generalizability of our findings may be limited due to the small sample size, this study provides results and a framework that support the need for larger-scale surveillance and targeted intervention efforts. National efforts could easily build on the methods that optimized the use of site-level observation and teacher/director reports to investigate best practices in kindergartens and establish an ongoing system for monitoring long-term trends in this area.
In future studies, it will be interesting to analyze the impact that the kindergartens’ physical environment features and social guidelines have on objective estimates of children’s play and physical active behavior. Our group plans to combine the use of EAEFC and EPAO type scales with measures of child-level PA (e.g., accelerometers, pedometers) and instruments focused on potential opportunities offered in the indoors and outdoors, like the Knauf’s (2019) visual environment rating scale [64] the Heft’s (1988) affordances taxonomy of children’s outdoor environments [65], or also by coding child-child and teacher-child interactions to capture social environments, as in Smith and colleagues (2014) [13]. In addition, a more complete understanding of the children’s perceptions about the physical and social elements of the kindergarten environment that modulate their play and movement would be of great benefit. Research work carried out using other methodologies, such as behavior-mapping approaches [13], participatory techniques, including child-led tours and photography, photographic elicitation and conversations [66] drawings [67] and focus groups [68], has also offered valuable contributions to the field. Nevertheless, the outcomes of the present study clearly identify environmental attributes and PA best practice opportunities that merit discussion by administrators, teachers, parents, policy makers, and organizations that support and promote the health and wellbeing of young children. Furthermore, these results provided a picture of the current physical conditions and social guidelines that can contribute to rethinking the physical environment and social approaches that might ensure a higher-quality kindergarten experience for children.

5. Conclusions

The present study brings to light relevant findings about how kindergarten might be modified to meet preschoolers’ developmental needs by providing richer physical and social environments that promote children’s physical and active behavior. This is exceedingly important in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, which negatively impacted preschoolers’ PA and development [43,69]. To ensure children a rich developmental environment and improved PA behaviors: (i) interventions should be initiated to examine the design of indoor PA play areas and the facilities that foster all types of movement; (ii) the outdoor play areas must be configured to ensure more opportunities for children to engage in various activity types and intensities, including challenging or “risky” play; (iii) a greater investment must be made in teacher training regarding PA, motor behaviors, and outdoor play and learning; and (iv) administrators need to be more aware of the importance of the environmental design to support daily practices that promote PA. We believe this study adds progress on the understanding and developing of diverse opportunities for young children to engage in various types of movement in kindergarten settings, which are pivotal for their healthy development.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M., G.V., F.L. and R.C.; methodology, M.M., G.V., F.L. and R.C., software, M.M. and D.H.; validation, M.M. and D.H.; formal analysis, M.M. and D.H.; investigation, M.M.; resources, M.M., G.V., F.L. and R.C.; data curation, M.M. and D.H.; writing—original draft preparation M.M.; writing—review & editing, M.M., G.V., F.L., D.H. and R.C.; visualization, M.M.; supervision, G.V., F.L. and R.C.; project administration, G.V., F.L. and R.C.; funding acquisition, M.M., G.V. and R.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was financially supported by the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) and República Portuguesa/Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior, Portugal (grant number SFRH/BD/138071/2018).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Human Kinetics, University of Lisbon (protocol code 26/2019 and date of approval: 5 November 2019).

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent has been obtained from schools to publish this paper.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

Acknowledgments

We thank the kindergartens for the warmth with which they received this study and the directors and teachers for their availability and motivation, which made this study possible.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Piaget, J. The Construction of Reality in the Child; Routledge: Abbington, UK, 2013; ISBN 9781136316944. [Google Scholar]
  2. Carson, V.; Lee, E.Y.; Hewitt, L.; Jennings, C.; Hunter, S.; Kuzik, N.; Stearns, J.A.; Unrau, S.P.; Poitras, V.J.; Gray, C.; et al. Systematic Review of the Relationships between Physical Activity and Health Indicators in the Early Years (0–4 Years). BMC Public Health 2017, 17, 33–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. OMS. Global Status Report on Physical Activity 2022; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022; ISBN 9789240059153.
  4. Hodges, E.A.; Smith, C.; Tidwell, S.; Berry, D. Promoting Physical Activity in Preschoolers to Prevent Obesity: A Review of the Literature. J. Pediatr. Nurs. 2013, 28, 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Moore, G.T.; Lane, C.G.; Hill, A.B.; Cohen, U.; McGinty, T. Recommendations for Child Care Centers; Revised Edition; University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee: Madison, WI, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  6. British Standard, B. EN 1176-1—Playground Equipment and Surfacing—Part 1: General Safety Requirements and Test Methods; European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2017; Available online: https://nobelcert.com/DataFiles/FreeUpload/EN1176-1(2017).pdf (accessed on 30 July 2023).
  7. Tapia-Serrano, M.A.; Sevil-Serrano, J.; Sánchez-Miguel, P.A.; López-Gil, J.F.; Tremblay, M.S.; García-Hermoso, A. Prevalence of Meeting 24-Hour Movement Guidelines from Pre-School to Adolescence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Including 387,437 Participants and 23 Countries. J. Sport Health Sci. 2022, 11, 427–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Bai, P.; Schipperijn, J.; Rosenberg, M.; Christian, H.; Bai, P.; Schipperijn, J.; Rosenberg, M.; Christian, H. Where Are Preschoolers Active in Childcare Centers? A Hot-Spot Analysis Using GIS, GPS and Accelerometry Data Analysis. Child. Geogr. 2022, 21, 660–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gibson, J.J. “The Theory of Affordances” The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception; Houghton Mifflin: Boston, MA, USA, 1979. [Google Scholar]
  10. Kyttä, M. The Extent of Children’s Independent Mobility and the Number of Actualized Affordances as Criteria for Child-Friendly Environments. J. Environ. Psychol. 2004, 24, 179–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Raustorp, A.; Pagels, P.; Boldemann, C.; Cosco, N.; Söderström, M.; Mårtensson, F. Accelerometer Measured Level of Physical Activity Indoors and Outdoors during Preschool Time in Sweden and the United States. J. Phys. Act. Health 2012, 9, 801–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Bower, J.K.; Hales, D.P.; Tate, D.F.; Rubin, D.A.; Benjamin, S.E.; Ward, D.S. The Childcare Environment and Children’s Physical Activity. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2008, 34, 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Smith, W.R.; Moore, R.; Cosco, N.; Wesoloski, J.; Danninger, T.; Dianne, S.; Trost, S.G.; Ries, N. Increasing Physical Activity in Childcare Outdoor Learning Environments: The Effect of Setting Adjacency Relative to Other Built Environment and Social Factors. Environ. Behav. 2014, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gubbels, J.S.; Kremers, S.P.J.; van Kann, D.H.H.; Stafleu, A.; Candel, M.J.J.M.; Dagnelie, P.C.; Thijs, C.; de Vries, N.K. Interaction Between Physical Environment, Social Environment, and Child Characteristics in Determining Physical Activity at Child Care. Health Psychol. 2011, 30, 84–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Määttä, S.; Gubbels, J.; Ray, C.; Koivusilta, L.; Nislin, M.; Sajaniemi, N.; Erkkola, M.; Roos, E. Children’s Physical Activity and the Preschool Physical Environment: The Moderating Role of Gender. Early Child. Res. Q. 2019, 47, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sando, O.J. The Physical Indoor Environment in ECEC Settings: Children ’ s Well-Being and Physical Activity Well-Being and Physical Activity. Eur. Early Child. Res. J. 2019, 27, 506–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bilton, H. Outdoor Learning in the Early Years—Management and Innovation, 3rd ed.; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2010; ISBN 9780415567596. [Google Scholar]
  18. Vashisth, S.; Studies, C.; Economics, H.; Wadhwa, V.; Studies, C.; Economics, H.; Chandra, R. Teachers Perceived Challenges during Curriculum Implementation in Preschools. J. Arts Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2021, 4, 8–13. [Google Scholar]
  19. Moore, G.T. Early Childhood Physical Environment Rating Scales, Dimensions of Education Rating Scales, Observation Schedules, and Behavior Maps for the Description and Measurement of Child Care Centers; University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee: Madison, WI, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  20. Ward, D.S.; Mazzucca, S.; Mcwilliams, C.; Hales, D. Use of the Environment and Policy Evaluation and Observation as a Self-Report Instrument ( EPAO-SR ) to Measure Nutrition and Physical Activity Environments in Child Care Settings: Validity and Reliability Evidence. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2015, 12, 124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  21. Gabbard, C.; Krebs, R. Studying Environmental Influence on Motor Development in Children. Phys. Educ. 2012, 69, 136–149. [Google Scholar]
  22. Ward, D.S. Physical Activity in Young Children: The Role of Child Care. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2010, 42, 499–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Van Cauwenberghe, E.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Maes, L.; Cardon, G. Efficacy and Feasibility of Lowering Playground Density to Promote Physical Activity and to Discourage Sedentary Time during Recess at Preschool: A Pilot Study. Prev. Med. 2012, 55, 319–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Barbosa, S.C.; Coledam, D.H.C.; Stabelini Neto, A.; Elias, R.G.M.; de Oliveira, A.R. School Environment, Sedentary Behavior and Physical Activity in Preschool Children. Rev. Paul. Pediatr. (Engl. Ed.) 2016, 34, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Little, H. Promoting Risk-Taking and Physically Challenging Play in Australian Early Childhood Settings in a Changing Regulatory Environment. J. Early Child. Res. 2015, 15, 83–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Moore, G.T.; Piwoni, J.L.; Kennedy, D. Designing Child Care Centers Using the Children’s Environment’s Pattern Language: The Northen Michigan University Children’s Center. Child. Environ. Q. 2015, 6, 54–63. [Google Scholar]
  27. Bento, G. Grelha de Observação de Espaços Exteriores Em Educação de Infância: GO–Exterior; UA Editora: Aveiro, Brazil, 2020; ISBN 978-972-789-650-9. [Google Scholar]
  28. Sandseter, E.B.H.; Storli, R.; Sando, O.J. The Dynamic Relationship between Outdoor Environments and Children’s Play. Education 2020, 50, 97–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Jansson, M. Children’s Perspectives on Playground Use as Basis for Children’s Participation in Local Play Space Management. Local Environ. 2015, 20, 165–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sando, O.J.; Sandseter, E.B.H. Affordances for Physical Activity and Wel-Being in the ECEC Outdoor Environment. J. Environ. Psychol. 2020, 69, 101430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. McWilliams, C.; Ball, S.C.; Benjamin, S.E.; Hales, D.; Vaughn, A.; Ward, D.S. Best-Practice Guidelines for Physical Activity at Child Care. Pediatrics 2009, 124, 1650–1659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Magalhães, P.; Coelho, E.; Forte, P.; Vasques, C. Habitual Physical Activity Patterns of Pre-School Children from Bragança. J. Hum. Sport Exerc. 2019, 14, 1537–1540. [Google Scholar]
  33. Staiano, A.E.; Webster, E.K.; Allen, A.T.; Jarrell, A.R.; Martin, C.K. Screen-Time Policies and Practices in Early Care and Education Centers in Relationship to Child Physical Activity. Child. Obes. 2018, 14, 341–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Wyver, S.; Little, H. Chapter 3. Early Childhood Education Environments: Affordances for Risk-Taking and Physical Activity in Play. In Phyisical Activity and Health Promotion in the Early Years, Educating the Young Child 14; Brewer, H., Jalongo, M.R., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 41–55. ISBN 9783319760063. [Google Scholar]
  35. Alcántara-porcuna, V.; Sánchez-lópez, M.; Martínez-andrés, M.; Martínez-vizcaíno, V.; Ruíz-hermosa, A.; Rodríguez-martín, B. Teachers ’ Perceptions of Barriers and Facilitators of the School Environment for Physical Activity in Schoolchildren: A Qualitative Study. Qual. Res. Sport. Exerc. Health 2022, 14, 1113–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Moreira, M.; Veiga, G.; Lopes, F.; Hales, D.; Luz, C.; Cordovil, R. Kindergarten Affordances for Physical Activity and Preschoolers ’ Motor and Social-Emotional Competence. Children 2023, 10, 214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Cheah, W.L.; Poh, B.K.; Ruzita, A.T.; Lee, J.A.C.; Koh, D.; Reeves, S.; Essau, C.; Summerbell, C.; Noor Hafizah, Y.; Anchang, G.N.J.; et al. Process Evaluation of a Kindergarten-Based Intervention for Obesity Prevention in Early Childhood: The Toybox Study Malaysia. BMC Public Health 2023, 23, 1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Malden, S.; Reilly, J.J.; Hughes, A.; Bardid, F.; Summerbell, C.; De Craemer, M.; Cardon, G.; Androutsos, O.; Manios, Y.; Gibson, A.M. Assessing the Acceptability of an Adapted Preschool Obesity Prevention Programme: ToyBox-Scotland. Child. Care Health Dev. 2020, 46, 213–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Brown, W.H.; Pfeiffer, K.A.; McIver, K.L.; Dowda, M.; Addy, C.L.; Pate, R.R. Social and Environmental Factors Associated with Preschoolers’ Nonsedentary Physical Activity. Child Dev. 2009, 80, 45–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Dowda, M.; Brown, W.H.; Mclver, K.L.; Pfeiffer, K.A.; O’Neill, J.R.; Addy, C.L.; Pate, R.R. Policies and Characteristics of the Preschool Environment and Physical Activity of Young Children. Pediatrics 2009, 123, e261–e266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  41. Kaarby, K.M.E.; Tandberg, C. ITERS and ECERS as Tools for Developing Quality in Physical Activity and Science in ECEC. Eur. J. Teach. Educ. 2023, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  42. Chaabane, S.; Doraiswamy, S.; Chaabna, K.; Mamtani, R.; Sohaila, C. The Impact of COVID-19 School Closure on Child and Adolescent Health: A Rapid Systematic Review. Children 2021, 8, 415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Pombo, A.; Luz, C.; Rodrigues, L.P.; Cordovil, R. COVID-19 Confinement In Portugal: Effects On The Household Routines Of Children Under 13. Res. Sq. 2020, 30, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bertram, T.; Formosinho, J.; Gray, C.; Pascal, C.; Whalley, M. EECERA Ethical Code for Early Childhood Researchers; Revised Version 1.2; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  45. Moreira, M.; Cordovil, R.; Lopes, F.; Veiga, G. Children’s Physical Environment Rating Scale (CPERS5): Processo de Tradução e Adaptação Para Avaliação Do Envolvimento Físico Do Jardim de Infância Em Portugal. In Estudos em Desenvolvimento Motor da Criança 13; Mendes, R., Silva, M.J.C., Sá, E., Eds.; University of Coimbra: Coimbra, Portugal, 2020; pp. 41–43. [Google Scholar]
  46. Moore, G.T. The Children’s Physical Environments Rating Scale (CPERS5); University of Sidney ARC Physical Environments of Early Childhood Centers Project: Sydney, Australia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  47. Moore, G.T.; Sugiyama, T. The Children ’ s Physical Environment Rating Scale ( C P ERS ): Reliability and Validity for Assessing the Physical Environment of Early Childhood Educational Facilities. Child. Youth Environ. 2007, 17, 24–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Moreira, M.; Veiga, G.; Lopes, F.; Cordovil, R. American Environment and Policy Assessment and Observation Self-Report (Epao-Sr): Processo de Tradução e Adaptação Para Avaliar as Oportunidades Para a Atividade Física No Jardim de Infância Em Portugal. In Estudos em Desenvolvimento Motor da Criança XIV; Matias, A.R., Almeida, G., Veiga, G., M, Eds.; University of Coimbra: Coimbra, Portugal, 2021; pp. 133–135. [Google Scholar]
  49. Byrd-Williams, C.E.; Dooley, E.E.; Thi, C.A.; Browning, C.; Hoelscher, D.M. Physical Activity, Screen Time, and Outdoor Learning Environment Practices and Policy Implementation: A Cross Sectional Study of Texas Child Care Centers. BMC Public Health 2019, 19, 274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  50. Sandseter, E.B.H.; Storli, R.; Sando, O.J. The Relationship between Indoor Environments and Children ’ s Play—Confined Spaces and Materials Play—Con Fi Ned Spaces and Materials. Educ. 3-13 Int. J. Primary, Elem. Early Years Educ. 2022, 50, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Pesce, C.; Croce, R.; Ben-Soussan, T.D.; Vazou, S.; McCullick, B.; Tomporowski, P.D.; Horvat, M. Variability of Practice as an Interface between Motor and Cognitive Development. Int. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2019, 17, 133–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sani, Y.; Wardany, O.F.; Herlina, H.; Vernanda, G. The Implementation of Embodied Learning: A Literature Review. Edukasi 2021, 15, 8–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Dyment, J.; O’Connell, T.S. The Impact of Playground Design on Play Choices and Behaviors of Pre-School Children. Child. Geogr. 2013, 11, 263–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Tandon, P.S.; Saelens, B.E.; Zhou, C.; Kerr, J.; Christakis, D.A. Indoor versus Outdoor Time in Preschoolers at Child Care. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2013, 44, 85–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Zamani, Z. ‘The Woods Is a More Free Space for Children to Be Creative; Their Imagination Kind of Sparks out There’: Exploring Young Children’s Cognitive Play Opportunities in Natural, Manufactured and Mixed Outdoor Preschool Zones. J. Adventure Educ. Outdoor Learn. 2016, 16, 172–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. 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]
  57. Sandseter, E.B.H.; Cordovil, R.; Hagen, T.L.; Lopes, F. Barriers for Outdoor Play in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) Institutions: Perception of Risk in Children’s Play among European Parents and ECEC Practitioners. Child Care Pract. 2020, 26, 111–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Veiga, G.; Silva, B.M.S.; Gibson, J.; Rieffe, C. Emotions in Play: The Role of Physical Play in Children’s Social Well-Being. In The Oxford Handbook of Emotional Development; Dukes, D., Samson, A.C., Walle, E.A., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2022; ISBN 9780198855903. [Google Scholar]
  59. Lester, S.; Russell, W. Turning the World Upside down: Playing as the Deliberate Creation of Uncertainty. Children 2014, 1, 241–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  60. Lopes, F. A Criança e o Espaço Rumo a Uma Cidade Amiga Do Brincar Livre. In Ludicidade, Educação e Neurociências da Retrospectiva de Infância a Projetos Interventivos-Coleção Brincar e Educação; Gimenes, B.P., Paula, A., Celina, P., Colino, M., Panizzolo, C., Marchini, E., Cardoso, F., Eds.; Gênio Criador Editora: São Paulo, Brazil, 2021; Volume 1, pp. 194–231. ISBN 9786586142495. [Google Scholar]
  61. Tandon, P.; Saelenes, B.E.; Zhou, C.; Christakis, D.A. Children’s Physical Activity Behavior during School Recess: A Pilot Study Using GPS, Accelerometer, Participant Observation, and Go-along Interview. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Bruijns, B.A.; Adamo, K.B.; Burke, S.M.; Carson, V.; Irwin, J.D.; Naylor, P.J.; Timmons, B.W.; Vanderloo, L.M.; Tucker, P. Early Childhood Education Candidates’ Perspectives of Their Importance and Responsibility for Promoting Physical Activity and Minimizing Screen-Viewing Opportunities in Childcare. J. Early Child. Teach. Educ. 2022, 43, 87–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Tandon, P.S.; Saelens, B.E.; Christakis, D.A. Active Play Opportunities at Child Care. Pediatrics 2015, 135, e1425–e1431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Knauf, H. Visual Environmental Scale: Analysing the Early Childhood Education Environment. Early Child. Educ. J. 2019, 47, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Heft, H. Affordances of Children’s Environments: A Functional Approach to Environmental Description. Child. Environ. Q. 1988, 5, 29–37. [Google Scholar]
  66. Blanchet-Cohen, N.; Elliot, E. Young Children and Educators Engagement and Learning Outdoors: A Basis for Rights-Based Programming. Early Educ. Dev. 2011, 22, 757–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Ward, K. What’s in a Dream? Natural Elements, Risk and Loose Parts in Children’s Dream Playspace Drawings. Australas. J. Early Child. 2018, 43, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Hayball, F.; McCrorie, P.; Kirk, A.; Gibson, A.M.; Ellaway, A. Exploring Children’s Perceptions of Their Local Environment in Relation to Time Spent Outside. Child. Soc. 2018, 32, 14–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Jiao, W.Y.; Wang, L.N.; Liu, J.; Fang, S.F.; Jiao, F.Y.; Pettoello-Mantovani, M.; Somekh, E. Behavioral and Emotional Disorders in Children during the COVID-19 Epidemic. J. Pediatr. 2020, 221, 264–266.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Quality of the physical environment features design to promote children’s PA measured by Escala de Avaliação dos Envolvimentos Físicos para Crianças (EAEFC).
Table 1. Quality of the physical environment features design to promote children’s PA measured by Escala de Avaliação dos Envolvimentos Físicos para Crianças (EAEFC).
Item Score
(0 to 4)		 Percent of Kindergartens (n = 16) in Each Quality Category
PartSubscale (Number of Items)Item Assessed 1,2M (SD) Average
Quality 		FailPoorFairGoodExcel
B.Building as a WholeCommon and Shared Facilities (12)4.8. Center has an indoor multipurpose playroom or gym, with enough space to accommodate slides, tunnels, ball play or to ride small push toys.1.00 (0.82)Poor2556.312.56.30
Facilities for adults and children (e.g., staff and multipurpose room)
C.Indoor Spaces for ChildrenPhysical Activity Areas (14)10.3. Center has an indoor physical gross motor play area for preschoolers.0.13 (0.50)Fail93.806.300
Spatial definition, surfaces, equipment, and storage of the physical gross motor play area10.4 The physical gross motor play area is spatially separated from other (non-shared) activity areas.2.19 (1.83)Fair31.312.56.36.343.8
10.5. The physical gross motor play area is appropriate for a range of gross-motor physical activities (e.g., hard surfaces for ball play, storage, display racks, climbing equipment).0.56 (0.63)Poor5043.86.300
D.Outdoor areas for ChildrenPlay Yards: Functional Needs (7)12.1 Calculate the total area (m2) of useable outdoor play yards per child.3.13 (1.45)Good12.5018.8068.8
Feature of outdoor play area meets functional needs.12.4. Some of the play yard is open and largely flat.2.75 (0.68)Good6.3018.868.86.3
12.7 There are roofed outdoor areas that protect children’s activities in most local weather conditions.0.87 (0.81)Poor37.537.52500
Play Yards: Developmental Needs (8)13.1 The play yard(s) provides enough diversity, such as a variety of surfaces for different types of play, to be interesting for children.1.19 (0.98)Poor2543.818.812.50
Features of outdoor play area meet developmental needs13.2. The play yards have both large and small areas for children to play.1.25 (1.13)Poor31.32537.506.3
13.5. Some of the play yards contain contours that are safe yet challenging enough for children to play on.1.00 (0.63)Poor18.862.518.800
Location and Site (11)14.9. The site has natural features such as trees, shrubs, and gentle slopes.1.88 (1.02)Fair12.518.837.531.30
Characteristics of the building site and its location in the community
1 Reprinted with permission from Moore, 2012 [46]. For more information on the scale items, contact the author of the original scale, The Children’s Physical Environments Rating Scale (CPERS5) [46]. 2 Each item is scored on a 0 to 4-point scale, according to the increase of compliance with the quality indicators for physical environment design features. 0 = Do not comply (fail); 1 = Comply poorly; 2 = Comply fairly; 3 = Comply good; 4 = Comply with excellence [46].
Table 2. Kindergartens (n = 16) compliance with EPAO-sr best practices to promote PA.
Table 2. Kindergartens (n = 16) compliance with EPAO-sr best practices to promote PA.
EPAO sr. Sub-ComponentsAverage Score aPercent of Kindergartens Meeting Best Practice
M (SD)
  • PA time provided
1.65 (0.58) 12.5
2.
Indoor play equipment
1.54 (0.46)0.0
3.
Daily PA practices
2.31 (0.46)43.8
4.
PA teacher training
1.06 (0.45)0.0
5.
PA written policy
1.63 (0.81)6.3
6.
Screen time
1.34 (0.29)0.0
7.
Daily screen time practices
1.69 (0.36)6.3
8.
Screen Time teacher training
0.50 (0.53)0.0
9.
Screen Time policy
1.62 (0.53)12.5
10.
Outdoor playtime
2.22 (0.33)31.3
11.
Outdoor play environment
1.48 (0.56)6.3
12.
Outdoor play and learning teacher training
0.65 (0.63)0.0
13.
Outdoor play and learning written policies
1.81 (0.83)12.5
Total score b19.50 (4.61)
a Higher scores indicate better compliance with best practice standards. 0 = do not meeting best practice, 3 = meeting best practice. b Total score range from 0 to 39.
Table 3. Percent of kindergartens reporting written policies and specific physical affordances to promote PA.
Table 3. Percent of kindergartens reporting written policies and specific physical affordances to promote PA.
Written Policies% of KGs aPhysical Attributes% of KGs aPortable Equipment% of KGs a
Physical Activity Outdoornatural Elements Outdoor
Include PA in classroom routine and transitions87.5Small trees68.8Balls (large and small)68.8
Adults and children with clothes participate in PA81.3Plants with flower56.3Equipment to jump (e.g., hula hoops, mini tramps)68.8
Motor Skills planned lessons 1 ≥ time per week81.3Larger trees50.0Loose parts62.5
Talking with children about PA importance68.8Grassy area50.0Marker items (e.g., poly spots, cones)62.5
Give families information on PA 2 ≥ per year37.5Floor with variations (e.g., hills, mounds)43.8Equipment to play on the floor (e.g., tumbling mats)56.3
Limit sitting time to 15 minutes per day25.0Trees to climb12.5Riding toys (e.g., cars, tricycles)56.3
120 min. PA indoor and outdoor per day25.0Rock to climb12.5Balance toys (e.g., balance beams, river stones) 50.0
60 min adult-led PA per day12.5Hill to climb or to down rolling6.3Push/Pull toys (e.g., wagon, scooters, wheelbarrows)43.8
Give teachers training on PA 2 ≥ year12.5Fixed Equipment Outdoor Portable Tunnel43.8
Screen Time (ST) Slide81.3Slide37.5
Only 30 min of screen time per week for children with 2 ≥ years43.8Swing62.5Twirling play equipment (e.g., ribbons, scarves, batons)31.3
Give families information on ST 2 ≥ per year37.5Paved for bike or tricycle43.8Climbing structures (can be moved by staff or child)31.3
Give teachers training on ST 2 ≥ year12.5Climb structures (e.g., jungle gyms, ladders)43.8Sand water toys25.0
Outdoor Play and Learning (OPL) Play house43.8Sand water table18.8
Child and adults’ clothes to go outdoor in all seasons73.3Seesaw37.5Portable pool18.8
3 ≥ times outdoor play per day50.0Balance platforms (e.g., balance beams, boards)25.0Indoor
90 min outdoor play per day50.0Sand box (e.g., large enough for child to sit in)25.0Equipment to play on the floor (e.g., tumbling mats)100.0
Give families information on OPL 2 ≥ per year50.0Benches25.0Equipment to jump (e.g., hula hoops, mini tramps)81.3
Give teachers training on OPL 2 ≥year25.0Tunnel6.3Balls (large and small)75.0
Physical Attributes Picnic tables6.3Marker items (e.g., poly spots, cones)68.8
Indoor spaces to practice PA Water area6.3Portable Tunnel56.3
Use the activity room to do PA with children75.0Media equipment Balance toys (e.g., balance beams, river stones) 50.0
Use gym to do PA with children68.8Computer70.6Loose parts37.5
Gym has space for any GMA b31.3TV64.7Climbing structures (can be moved by staff or child)31.3
Activity room have space for any GMA6.3DVD52.9Twirling equipment (e.g., ribbons, scarves, batons)31.3
Outdoor spaces to practice PA Tablet5.9Push/Pull toys (e.g., wagon, scooters, wheelbarrows)18.8
Outdoor have space for all class to run93.8Smartboard0.0Riding toys (e.g., cars, tricycles)6.3
Videogames system (e.g., playstation)0.0Sand water table or toys0.0
Slide0.0
Portable pool0.0
a Kindergarten; b GMA = Gross motor activities.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics (Mean, SD, min., percentile distribution and max.) of some daily PA routines.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics (Mean, SD, min., percentile distribution and max.) of some daily PA routines.
Frequency, Time, and Type of Physical Activity Behavior a in a DayM (SD)Min.p25Medianp75Max.
Number of times outside per day1.97 (0.56)11.001.001.003
Child play outdoors (min per day)72.19(22.28)4056.2568.7590.00128
Child indoor active play (min per day)28.44 (36.73)011.2517.5028.75150
Adult PA led outdoor (min per day)7.50 (7.75)00.007.5015.0020
Adult PA led indoor (min per day)15.94 (10.52)06.2517.5023.7530
Child is seating indoor (min per day)22.56 (12.34)015.0024.5030.0044
Child is on the computer (min per day)5.31 (6.95)00.002.5012.5020
Child watching TV/movie (min per day)3.12 (4.79)00.000.0010.0010
Type of physical activities outdoors a5.33 (1.36)35.005.506.567
Type of physical activities indoors a2.19 (1.52)01.251.753.505
a Type of physical activities rating scale used by teachers to quantify child behavior is a 1 to 7 scale of increasing intensity: 1 (mostly sitting), 2, 3 (mostly slow/easy activities like walking and marching), 4, 5 (mostly moderate activities), 6, 7 (mostly vigorous activities like running).
Table 5. Correlations between EAEFC items related to PA and daily practices reported by teachers in EPAO-sr. surveys.
Table 5. Correlations between EAEFC items related to PA and daily practices reported by teachers in EPAO-sr. surveys.
EPAO-Sr. Daily Practices
OutdoorIndoor
EAEFC ItemPNumber of Times Outside per DayMinutes to Play Outside per DayMinutes
Teacher Led PA per Day		Type of Physical ActivitiesMinutes Active Play per DayMinutes
Teacher Led PA per Day		Minutes
TV or Movie		Minutes
Computer		Minutes SittingType of Physical Activities
(Scored 0 to 4)rs (p)rs (p)rs (p)rs (p)rs (p)rs (p)rs (p)rs (p)rs (p)rs (p)
Indoor multipurpose active playroom or gym−0.01 (0.97)−0.09 (0.74)0.07 (0.81)−0.31 (0.24)0.49 (0.06)0.59 * (0.02)0.49 (0.06)−0.18 (0.52)−0.31 (0.25)0.47 (0.06)
Indoor physical gross motor play area for preschoolers0.14 (0.61)0.17 (0.53)−0.16 (0.55)−0.37 (0.16)0.21 (0.43)0.64 **(0.01)−0.04 (0.90)0.08 (0.78)−0.14 (0.60)0.14 (0.60)
Inside Physical area separated from the others0.14 (0.61)0.04 (0.89)0.10 (0.72)−0.43 (0.10)0.24 (0.37)0.52 * (0.04)0.19 (0.49)−0.06 (0.82)−0.39 (0.14)0.24 (0.38)
Inside Physical area appropriate for a range of GMA a−0.08 (0.78)0.02 (0.95)0.08 (0.76)−0.36 (0.18)0.23 (0.40)0.53 * (0.53)0.46 (0.07)−0.35(0.19)−0.64 ** (0.01)0.30 (0.26)
Useable outdoor area/child0.41 (0.11)0.04 (0.89)−0.24 (0.38)0.35 (0.19)−0.04 (0.89)−0.00 (1.00)0.11 (0.69)−0.30 (0.26)0.06 (0.82)0.16 (0.56)
Outdoor open and largely flat0.03 (0.91)−0.12 (0.66)−0.38 (0.15)−0.07 (0.80)−0.17 (0.54)0.29 (0.27)0.02 (0.95)−0.12 (0.65)−0.09 (0.75)−0.18 (0.50)
Outdoor roofed area0.30 (0.25)−0.10 (0.71)0.11 (0.67)0.42 (0.11)−0.12 (0.65)−0.28 (0.29)−0.59 * (0.02)0.21 (0.44)0.65 ** (0.01)−0.12 (0.66)
Outdoor diversity and variety surfaces0.30 (0.25)0.07 (0.81)−0.21 (0.43)0.53 * (0.03)0.26 (0.33)0.17 (0.54)−0.19 (0.49)−0.08 (0.76)0.38 (0.15)0.35 (0.19)
Outdoor large and small areas to play0.55 * (0.03)0.03 (0.90)0.03 (0.92)0.54 *(0.03)0.23 (0.40)0.02 (0.94)−0.12 (0.65)−0.26 (0.33)0.24 (0.37)0.40 (0.13)
Outdoor safe and challenging contours0.50 * (0.05)−0.13 (0.62)−0.27 (0.32)0.47 (0.07)−0.02 (0.93)−0.27 (0.31)−0.22 (0.410.00 (1.00)0.20 (0.45)0.18 (0.51)
Building site with natural features0.52 * (0.04)0.35 (0.19)−0.27 (0.32)0.55 * (0.03)0.08 (0.77)0.22 (0.42)0.03 (0.91)0.06 (0.81)0.26 (0.33)0.16 (0.55)
a Gross Motor Activities. Note: ρ coefficients only shown when they are significant. * moderate correlation; ** strong correlation.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Moreira, M.; Veiga, G.; Lopes, F.; Hales, D.; Cordovil, R. Quality of the Opportunities for Preschoolers’ Physical Activity in Portuguese Kindergartens. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 830. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13080830

AMA Style

Moreira M, Veiga G, Lopes F, Hales D, Cordovil R. Quality of the Opportunities for Preschoolers’ Physical Activity in Portuguese Kindergartens. Education Sciences. 2023; 13(8):830. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13080830

Chicago/Turabian Style

Moreira, Mariana, Guida Veiga, Frederico Lopes, Derek Hales, and Rita Cordovil. 2023. "Quality of the Opportunities for Preschoolers’ Physical Activity in Portuguese Kindergartens" Education Sciences 13, no. 8: 830. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13080830

APA Style

Moreira, M., Veiga, G., Lopes, F., Hales, D., & Cordovil, R. (2023). Quality of the Opportunities for Preschoolers’ Physical Activity in Portuguese Kindergartens. Education Sciences, 13(8), 830. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13080830

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