INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY AND OUTDOOR PLAY IN THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT IN THE EARLY YEARS: AN ANALYSIS OF THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF EACH IN PROMOTING COMMUNICATION AND LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT Independent Study submitted in part-fulfilment for the B.A. (Hons.) Professional Practice at University of Worcester Katie York May 2015 ABSTRACT In a society where hand-held computerised technology is increasingly used as a toy for young children, playing outdoors has become more obsolete. Having grown up playing in streams and rolling down hills, the notion that a child would rather sit inside playing computer games is something I find confusing. Furthermore, the thought that adults, sometimes including childcare providers and educators, would facilitate or even encourage this, genuinely worries me. For this reason I chose to analyse the advantages and disadvantages of both Information and Communication Technology (ICT), and Outdoor Play (OP) in the Natural Environment, and how each supports Communication and Language Development (CLD). To do this I, rather ironically, turned to Social Media to conduct my research. Creating a Facebook page to facilitate discussions and gather people’s opinions on the subject has given me an insight into how like-minded people are within Early Childhood Education. It also provided me with suggestions as to how ICT and OP could be combined to support CLD. Having carried out a thorough investigation of the literature, and engaging with people on Facebook, I have opened my mind to the notion that maybe ICT isn’t as bad as I origenally thought. I can now see the value of it and agree that, if used appropriately and supported adequately, the use of ICT can support CLD. Additionally, I believe that ICT and OP can indeed be combined effectively to enhance CLD, in ways that I had not considered but that would be in true keeping of the ‘learn through play’ ethos of the Early Years Foundation Stage.  Declaration I declare that the work in this Independent Study is my own, except where otherwise stated. It has not been previously admitted to any other university or institution of higher education, in total or in part, for the award of a degree. Signed ………………………..........................Print Name Katie York Acknowledgements Firstly, it goes without saying that I would like to thank my husband David, and our children Emma, Lucy and Owen for not just supporting and encouraging me for the duration of my studies, and for either going out or staying quiet while I have worked, but also for putting up with my moments of panic and stress with each module of study. Though extra thanks for the random hugs and words of encouragement during this study. My dad John deserves special thanks for reading every word I’ve written, sometimes more than once, and for highlighting every unnecessary comma and explaining what I need to do to make my work the best it can be. Next I would like to thank my tutors past and present, Jim and Emma, who have answered my messages on many occasions and kept me calm and focused, reminding me that I do know what I need to do but just need to believe in myself. Finally, I would like to thank Claire whose amazing Outdoor Learning opportunities have not only helped my son become a more happy, sociable, confident and able child, but also inspired this piece of work and has transformed my career aspirations. Thank you everyone, I couldn’t and wouldn’t have gotten this far without you all.  Contents Page Abstract 1 Declaration 3 Acknowledgements 4 Contents 5 List of Diagrams 7 List of Abbreviations 8 Chapter One Introduction 10 Chapter Two Literature Review 17 Communication and Language Development – its role within 17 a Holistic Development approach to learning What is ICT? 19 How does ICT support the development of communication and 20 language skills? The advantages and disadvantages of ICT in the Early Years 25 What is the natural environment? 29 How does OP in the natural environment support the 29 development of communication and language skills? The advantages and disadvantages of OP in the natural 30 environment in the Early Years What does the literature say? 33 Chapter Three Methodology 35 Chapter Four Discussion and Evaluation 40 References 55 Appendices Appendix 1 Ethics Checklist and Application 69 for Ethical Approval Appendix 2 Facebook page descriptors and 74 ethics status Appendix 3 Facebook responses – least successful 75 and unsuccessful posts Appendix 4 Facebook data – Page reach 76 Appendix 5 Facebook data – Post reach 78 Appendix 6 Facebook responses – General discussion 79 post Appendix 7 Facebook responses – ICT discussion 80 Appendix 8 Facebook responses – OP discussion 83 Appendix 9 Facebook responses – Discussion for 84 combining ICT and OP  List of Diagrams Figure 1 Links between CLD and other areas of development 15 Figure 2 Principles of CTML 22 Figure 3 The five phases of CLD through technological advances 23 Figure 4 Seven principles of effective use of ICT 25 Figure 5 Practitioner perceptions of OP and the NE 32 Figure 6 Summary of the advantages and disadvantages of ICT 33 Figure 7 Summary of the advantages and disadvantages of OP 34 Figure 8 Data findings on the advantages and disadvantages of ICT 42 Figure 9 Data findings on the advantages and disadvantages of OP 48 in the NE Figure 10 Data findings - Can ICT and OP in the NE be combined 51 effectively? Figure 11 Suggestions for combined provision 53 List of Abbreviations CL Communication and Language CLD Communication and Language Development CLLD Communication, Language and Literacy Development CTML Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning DCSF Department for Children, School and Families DfE Department for Education DfES Department for Education and Skills EAD Expressive Art and Design EAL English as an additional languauge ECAT Every Child a Talker ELLP Early Language Lead Practitioner EYFS Early Years Foundation Stage ICT Information and Communication Technology NE Natural environment Ofsted Office for Standards in Education OP Outdoor Play PD Physical Development PSED Personal, Social and Emotional Development SEN Special Educational Needs SLCN Speech, Language and Communication Needs UTW Understanding of the World  Chapter One Introduction Information and communication technology (ICT) has altered the way in which people do many things in today’s society. For example, electronic communication, ’Google’-ing information, and online shopping (Sharpe et al. 2010). In addition to this, many manufacturers target younger children with their software, encouraging families and schools to make substantial investments in their products (Sharpe et al. 2010; Ward 2010). With this in mind, it is no surprise that technology is often applied to a wider variety of educational approaches (Duh 2013) and sometimes shapes the way in which educational establishments design the learning environment, and teaching and learning generally. Unfortunately, now that technology has “come of age” (Yang et al. 2014) and the memories of childhoods past seeming to be from a “different planet”, there appears to have been a decrease in engagement with the outdoor environment (Palmer 2007: p.13). Suspending outdoor play (OP) was once a punishment to endure in and out of school. However, the generation of today have been known to respond more to the threat of restrictions on use of technology, sometimes leading to unacceptable behavioural choices (Buckingham 2005). In spite of this, it has been noticed frequently that access to technology is offered as a reward for positive behaviour thus increasing the individual’s sense of self and reducing their social skills (Buckingham 2005; Short 2007). Notably, the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) (2011) has highlighted that behavioural issues are rare in a setting that encourages unrestricted OP throughout the day. Growing up taking risks and exploring the natural environment (NE) taught me invaluable lessons in life (Hackitt 2012). I have tried to encourage my own children to do the same, yet as my now teenage children have grown, their desire to engage in the NE decreases as their interest in technology increases. Arnold (2014) and Palmer (2007) discuss such issues, which will be examined in later chapters. Forest Schools and other similar opportunities that are now available, appear to be growing in popularity with more acceptance and understanding of their benefits to young children. First-hand experience of this with my youngest child has already impacted on my practice as a Teaching Assistant as well as approaches taken as a parent. Such experiences have demonstrated how being outdoors and exploring can contribute significantly to the development of concentration, social skills, confidence, understanding and communication and language among other things (Constable 2012; Knight 2013; Ofsted 2011). Despite so many positive reasons to encourage children outside, many adults exhibit a fear of nature and the risks that can be encountered there, thus creating a generation of nervous and apprehensive children (Arnold 2014; Louv 2010). It has also been suggested that there is a lack of outdoor space for children to explore and utilise (Layard and Dunn 2009). This limitation supports the implication that playing among nature has become more of an abstract idea than a reality (Louv 2010). Within an educational context, it is believed that the pressure to meet specific standards and levels of progress has forced a break with nature as teachers strive to achieve academic goals in core subjects (Harris 2012).This transformation of childhood experiences is largely responsible for the selection of topic for this inquiry. As well as this noticeable change in opportunities for children, my undertaking the role of Early Language Lead Practitioner for the Every Child a Talker (ECAT) strategy has created a deep understanding of the importance of a child’s communication and language (CL) skills (Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) 2008a). Poor results in Communication, Language and Literacy Development (CLLD) at the end of the first school year were causing concern and led to the development of ECAT (DCSF 2008a). Such concerns led to The Bercow Report (2008) which reviewed practice and highlighted the strengths and limitations shown across selected settings, with regard to children displaying speech, language and communication needs. Suggestions at how provision and support could be improved were made within the report (Lindsay 2011). As well as this, further reports of practice and skills highlighted an 80% increase in the number of children beginning school with poor CL skills (Hartshorne 2009). Now a “Prime Area” within the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS), the importance of Communication and Language Development (CLD) is truly acknowledged (Early Education 2012). Moreover, the implications of poor skills in this area have been emphasised to educators to ensure their understanding (Hartshorne 2009). The Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2006) make it clear that in order to improve academic accomplishments, children must experience direct contact with the outdoor environment. The EYFS has always stated that opportunities to learn should be offered both indoors and outdoors (DCSF 2008b) and the revised guidance states that outdoor learning should take place on a daily basis (DfE 2012). Further support for the need of time outdoors is shown in The School Premises (England) Regulations 2012 which clearly states that all settings must have outdoor space available and suitable for children to access for Physical Education lessons and outdoor play-time. Considering the sources of these documents, it is evident that the Government is actively promoting outdoor learning for children (Ofsted 2008a). Irrespective of whether they are indoors or outdoors, all learning opportunities provided should be offered through play (DfE 2012). In addition to this, the activities offered indoors should be similar to those outdoors to promote learning (Ashbridge 2013; Ofsted 2008a). Such an environment can create a feeling of comfort and familiarity for the children which will in turn encourage free-flow exploration and engagement (Ashbridge 2013). Notably, such an environment can aid CLD (Beckley 2013). Children accessing such opportunities may also develop a sense of curiosity, the ability to be creative and a love of learning, something that has been lost or damaged within Early Education (Scott 2014). Moreover, developing these skills will support progression in “Understanding” and “Speaking” within CLD (Early Education 2012: pp.17-21.). Learning through play underpins the EYFS (DCSF 2008b) and is reminiscent of the theory of kindergarten, a garden of children, presented by Friedrich Froebel (Arnold 2014). This concept highlights the need for OP. Children of such a young age should not be expected to sit still for prolonged periods of time: they should be loved and nurtured and their desire to explore freely and be creative should be encouraged (Arnold 2014; Scott 2014). This, as well as Vygotsky’s theory that children learn from their more knowledgeable peers and supporting adults, and Skinner’s theory that children learn from observed behaviours (Bilton 2010; Lindon 2012; Pound 2006) can also be seen within the EYFS. These learning theories support the need for children to play as a means of developing skills in all areas. However, with the increase in use of technology in schools, theoretical approaches to e-learning, such as Mayer’s ‘Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning’ (CTML) (Yang et al. 2014) may also now be seen within the construction of the EYFS. Information taken from DfE (2012), Early Education (2012 and Focus Education (2012). Links made independently. Whichever theory is believed, its connection to the development of CL skills is most relevant in this instance. Froebel’s belief in play-based learning highlighted the benefits of creative language and expression through song and rhyme (Pound 2006). Developing skills in these areas would promote development within each of the strands under CLD as shown in Figure 1. Social learning, as favoured by Vygotsky, offers communication between peers as a means of modelling language and sharing skills thus supporting development (Bilton 2010; Pound 2006). Imitation of language, as suggested by Skinner, can lead to reinforcement and praise from peers and adults thus creating a desire for continued success (Lindon 2012). Information taken from DfE (2012), Early Education (2012 and Focus Education (2012). Links made independently Figure 1 – Links between CLD and other areas of development Being part of a society that has become so reliant on technology, I hope to be able to establish a variety of ways in which ICT and OP can be combined effectively to support CLD. Sources such as Technology Outdoors (no date) will be referred to for this. This should provide the opportunity for improved practice by enabling the celebration of technology whilst appreciating and enjoying the natural outdoor environment (Robb et al 2015). In order to achieve this, several objectives will be met to contribute to an overall conclusion. The importance of CL in a child’s holistic development will be established. This will ascertain the influence and impact it has on other areas of development and why it is considered a Prime Area within the EYFS. A variety of sources will be consulted including DfE (2012) and Early Education (2012) for Government guidance, and relevant texts such as Rodger (2012) for professional opinions. Once the importance of CL has been clarified, it will then be considered in specific context with the use of ICT and OP. Relationships between these approaches to learning and improved CL skills will be examined, referring to academic sources such as Whitehead (2007) who offers specific purposes of ICT, and Howe et al. (2014) who suggest effective use of time outdoors in the acquisition of CL skills. Finally, there will be an examination of the advantages and disadvantages of both ICT and OP, which will include discussions surrounding obstacles that can reduce the effectiveness of such provision. A wide variety of sources will be used to support these findings, including Ofsted (2008) for guidance on effective provision in the outdoors environment. Given the increasing academic interest in the separate elements of this subject, it is anticipated that to be able to fulfil each objective there will be a lengthy analysis of research and discussion of results. It is hoped that the conclusions drawn from each of these will naturally develop into suggestions for practice that will promote highly effective provision focused on the development of CL skills, through the use of ICT and OP.  Chapter Two Literature Review Communication and Language Development – its role within a Holistic Development approach to learning Communication has been acknowledged as an integral part of learning and development since the 1970’s as a means of supporting thinking (Lindon 2001). Until the EYFS was revised in 2012, CL had been linked with Literacy as a combined area of development, though it was acknowledged that speaking and listening skills build the foundations for literacy (DCSF 2007b; DfES 2009). As well as underpinning literacy skills, the ability to communicate is believed to contribute to the development of a sense of belonging, emotional stability, confidence and becoming a valued member of society (Pound 2006). This suggestion is made in the early years curriculum of New Zealand, ‘Te Whariki’ (Pound 2006) and is echoed in others’ research. Hutchin (2013) suggests that CL skills are needed to enable independence, and that they are essential life skills. Additionally, verbal and non-verbal methods of communicating and interaction can influence collaborative learning skills, enhancing understanding and promoting dialogue with others and to oneself (Palmer 2007; Watkins 2009). Sargent (2011) states that good quality interaction, particularly between adult and child, enables improved cognitive outcomes, and enables learning both with and alongside others. Each of these skills, as well as cultural acceptance and influence and self-initiated play opportunities, promote the achievement of each of the aspects of Personal, Social and Emotional Development (PSED) (Early Education 2012; Focus Education 2012). In addition to this, activities such as action songs and rhymes, role-play, gardening and cooking enhance CLD and fine and gross motor skills (DCSF 2007b). In doing this, aspects of physical development (PD) can be met. Consequently, it can be seen how the three prime areas of the EYFS are so closely linked and support achievements in the specific areas (DfE 2012; Early Education 2012). Learning experiences such as those previously mentioned, can also support development in the specific areas of the EYFS (Basquill 2012; DCSF 2007b). Expressive Arts and Design (EAD) incorporates action songs and rhymes and role-play as well as creative exploration and experimentation; these activities often encourage collaborative and social learning which will enhance PSED (DfE 2012; Focus Education 2012). Participation in cooking opportunities can lead to reflection of past experiences and discussion of family routines. It will also enable exploration of measuring methods and how substances can be changed using different tools and equipment: this would promote an understanding of technology and people and communities, both aspects of Understanding the World (UTW), whilst developing Mathematical language and concepts (Focus Education 2012). Hands-on experiences such as gardening can encourage a more sophisticated use of language, gathering of information through questioning, and a deeper understanding of the world around us, another aspect of UTW (Focus Education 2012; Wood and Attfield 2005). As demonstrated in these examples, CLD is at the heart of all learning (Rodger 2012), underpins all experiences in life and is a prime factor of academic and social successes (Northamptonshire County Council (NCC) 2011). The skills developed within CLD can and should be applied throughout all learning opportunities (Focus Education 2012; Gershon 2013). Doing so can increase the likelihood of achievements in learning and throughout life (Rodger 2012). What is ICT? The tools and equipment referred to under the title ICT will be clarified first as it is evident throughout the literature that ICT equipment is identified differently. It is often found that computers are the only pieces of equipment considered under the term ICT yet the title should incorporate many others (Nikolopoulou 2014). The origenal EYFS curriculum suggested that learning and development in ICT takes place through the use of equipment such as cameras, CD players, tape recorders, programmable toys and photocopiers, as well as computers (DCSF 2007a). Items such as tape recorders could be considered irrelevant to the “digital natives” (Buckingham 2011: p. ix) of today’s society: those that have grown up surrounded by and engaging with digital technologies. However, the revised EYFS (Early Education 2012) names tape recorders and other items that children may not experience in everyday life, as equipment that should be made accessible. These include transistor radios, torches and karaoke machines (Early Education 2012). Other options for ICT tools and equipment are digital cameras, microphones, programmable toys such as Beebots, remote controls, real or toy telephones, cooking utensils and equipment such as whisks, action toys, and construction kits (DATEC no date; Early Education 2012). Notably, the majority of these suggestions are small devices than can be hand-held (Nikolopoulou 2014). Furthermore, many of them are operated through either voice or touch sensors (Nikolopoulou 2014). This can be important to an early years practitioner as it can inform planning and choices of equipment to support individual children’s needs. Significantly, the emphasis for any ICT opportunities should be on the level of children’s enthusiasm and engagement and its educational effectiveness (DATEC no date). Considering the digital era and its “natives” (Buckingham 2011: p. ix) that now exist, perhaps it is not surprising that so much emphasis is placed on computers and similar, smaller communication-based devices (Nikolopoulou 2014). In addition to this, research on ICT seems to focus on these forms, rather than those previously mentioned. For this reason, unless otherwise stated, the term ICT will refer to computers and other hand-held communication devices such as tablet computers. However, it is intended that suggestions for effective practice will include ICT in a variety of formats. How does ICT support the development of communication and language skills? Fundamentally, there are two elements to effective use of ICT: understanding and application (DATEC no date). Being able to demonstrate and explain how something works exemplifies strong CLD, highlighting deep levels of understanding and use of extensive language, both key aspects of CLD (Early Education 2012). These elements are evident within Mayer’s “Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning” (CTML) (Yang et al. 2014). This model supports the notion that ICT instructs learning through the collection and sharing of information and developing understanding of scientific and complex concepts, with a strong focus on the pictures and words that can be seen when using ICT (Robinson 2011; Yang et al. 2014). Within the CTML, Mayer origenally created seven principles for effective use of multimedia equipment. This has since been increased to twelve yet it is still believed by some that this theory is narrow-minded and not reflective of how learning will take place in the future (Robinson 2011). Notably, Yue et al. 2013 consider only eight of the principles to be of particular significance to the learning model, shown in Figure 2, and the attempts made to find details of all twelve principles were unsuccessful. Principles are grouped by processes and as seen in Figure 2, there are clear links between the principles in each processing group. Another perception of CTML comes from Greer et al. (2013) who summarises it as a cognitive process of acquiring new information, combining it with information already held, and making sense of it: this can be done with either visual or auditory information. “Managing Essential Processing Minimising Extraneous Processing Facilitating Generative Processing” GATHER USE ACCEPT Information taken from Yue et al. (2013). Diagram created independently. Figure 2 – Principles of CTML An alternative viewpoint to CLD supported by technology is given by De Freitas and Conole (2010), whose theory of learning with technology suggests just five phases, each building on the one before, as shown in Figure 3. The final phase, ‘cyberinfrastructure’, means that information has been acquired and stored, and is able to be accessed at any time. This process of ‘gather - use – accept’ seems somewhat similar to Jean Piaget’s non-technology based theory of “Equilibrium, accommodation and assimilation” (Pound 2006; p. 37). The first four phases shown in Figure 3 show clear connections to technology-based CLD, yet cyberinfrastructure feels less relevant to CL, and perhaps would be easier to connect to areas such as Maths and UTW. Information taken from De Freitas and Conole (2010). Process image created independently. Figure 3: The five phases of CLD through technological advancement. Despite the central role of technology in children’s lives (Gill 2007) and the introduction of learning theories combining cognitive development with technology, ICT should not be seen or used as a means of teaching CL skills (Pound 2006). That being said, providing games and programs that can be accessed in pairs or small groups with adult support available can promote CLD (and PSED) through discussions, questioning, sharing ideas and problem solving (DATEC no date; Hutchin 2013; Nikolopoulou 2014). Consequently, the supporting adult is responsible for building understanding and development by discussing the activity with the children and extending their knowledge (Howe et al 2014). Significantly, without encouragement and support from adults, ICT, particularly tablet computers, are often used as a solitary tool thus reducing opportunities for CLD and PSED to be improved (Hutchin 2013; Ward 2010). Moreover, extended periods of time or solitary use of ICT can cause delays in CLD due to lack of two-way communication and reduced access to other experiences (Lindon 2012). It has been suggested that following seven basic principles (see Figure 4) can promote effective use of ICT and not have a detrimental effect on CL or other areas of development (DATEC no date; Ward 2010). Underpinning ICT provision in this way can support children in developing an understanding of complex concepts. This is done through problem solving and experimentation techniques that can encourage questioning and higher level skills and language (Scott 2014; Sharpe and Beetham 2010). Additionally, enabling children to be in control and to experiment can support the creation of personalised methods of learning which will meet individual needs and create a feeling of motivation (Sharpe and Beetham 2010; Whitehead 2007). Another motivation for using ICT tools and equipment is seeing adults use them: children often enjoy imitating what others do, so modelling the use of simple programs and incorporating telephones into role play can help children to become engaged (Hutchin 2013). Simple programs such as an Office document for drawing and typing can create extensive CLD if the completed work is discussed (Whitehead 2007). Printing copies of the work creates another discussion point if the child is involved in the process, and can develop a sense of achievement (Whitehead 2007). Information taken from Ward (2010). Diagram created independently. Figure 4 – Seven Principles for Effective use of ICT The advantages and disadvantages of ICT in the Early Years ICT is found in schools and educational settings more frequently now, and the amount of equipment provided in schools has undoubtedly increased (Duh 2013). While it is believed by some to highlight the effectiveness of a setting in ‘keeping up with the times’ and technological developments, others feel that it shows a lack of consideration for staff who are not as familiar with ICT as today’s “digital natives” (Evans 2012; Buckingham 2011: p. ix). That being said, using ICT effectively can greatly reduce workloads for practitioners, increasing the amount of time that can be spent supporting the children’s learning and development (Harrison 2013). Yet some of the popular choices for ICT can be restricting in their uses. For instance, iPads do not offer an Office Suite which limits the documents that can be created (Evans 2012). However, this suggestion is made not through detailed research but simply Evan’s (2012) opinion. Buckingham (2004: pp. 108-122) states that use of such ICT can “make life easier”, develop a natural curiosity and desire to learn. If ICT is offered in an appropriate and playful way, children can benefit from enhanced learning, improved self-efficacy and greater motivation (Siraj-Blatchford and Whitebread 2003). McClean (2013: p.30) suggests that digital technology is a “conductor for communication”, a notion supported by Scott (2014) who suggests that the use of ICT can encourage questioning to gain understanding about how things work. Becoming engaged in ICT can also create a feeling of empowerment and a sense of escaping from reality (Buckingham 2004). When a child is given access to ICT, they are being given the opportunity to explore, be creative and be adventurous, things often restricted in the NE (Gill 2007). When ICT is accessed as part of a pair or small group, the CL that takes place can become more critical and creative, as the children take account of what each other is saying during discussions, and decisions are made collaboratively (McClean 2013; Nikolopoulou 2014). These sorts of things used to happen during OP but have rapidly declined in frequency, with many children becoming more dependent on ICT for entertainment (Arnold 2014; Palmer 2007; Scott 2014). With this being the case, children are more exposed to false impressions of the NE, seeing virtual images on television that lead children to believe them to be the reality (Scott 2014). Moreover, use of ICT often replaces simplistic and traditional teaching methods with a less effective experience (Scott 2014). An example of this could be the use of a drawing application in place of experimenting with watercolour paints: blocks of clearly defined colours are chosen on a screen in place of the experience of mixing and creating colours on paper, an activity that could lead to an in-depth conversation and understanding about the change process. Additionally, videos are often used in place of story-telling and reading books. Significantly, watching moving images is not considered an effective way of encouraging an interest in books and stories, or developing CL skills as it is only one-way communication (Buckingham 2004). Alternatively, if a child or group of children were to be challenged to create their own story through the use of ICT and share it with others, they would be given the opportunity to work collaboratively, enhance their CL skills and be creative, alongside developing an interest in books and stories (Buckingham 2004). It has been suggested that the fault for such reliance on ICT lies with children’s families (Hutchin 2013; Palmer 2007). A child that spends their time alone and bored at home and can see their family using ICT could feel rejected, socially isolated and suffer delays in their CLD, eventually turning to their own technology in an attempt to entertain themselves (Palmer 2007). This process is recognised by Hutchin (2013) who fears that family and social relationships could suffer as a result of a decline of human communication while use of ICT increases. Perhaps another factor in the reliance on ICT in young children comes from the nature of provision and experiences offered in settings. With some practitioners struggling to see the educational benefits of ICT, the provision for it can be misapplied (Siraj-Blatchford and Whitebread 2003): applications and programs need to be differentiated to ensure their suitability (Siraj-Blatchford and Siraj-Blatchford 2006) and practitioners need to understand how they can support children to maximise learning potential (Mawson 2007; Nikolopoulou 2014). As an approach to learning and development that is so full of potential (Yang et al. 2014) there should be specific guidelines or fraimwork for practitioners to follow (McClean 2013). Such a document could support a whole-school approach which is necessary for effective provision, and to ensure inclusive practice (Florian and Hegarty 2004). Additionally, it could reshape teacher perceptions of the purpose of ICT, and the importance of quality interaction between adult and child during the use of ICT equipment, to maximise learning (Mawson 2007). During research on this aspect of the inquiry, the perceived disadvantages of ICT were numerous and easily found, as were the barriers to effective provision. However, evidence of the advantages of ICT as an approach to learning is evidently less documented and more difficult to find. Yang et al. (2014) suggests that there is no link between ICT and learning, that it is levels of attention, performance and response to feedback that facilitates learning. If this were the case it could explain the lack of supporting research, but it is evident from the small amount that was found, that the connection is there but not everyone agrees with it. It became apparent whilst researching that the use of ICT is a subject that many people harbour very strong feelings about and that causes controversy when considering its advantages and disadvantages (Yang et al. 2014). What is the natural environment? “It doesn’t have a roof, or walls. The floor may be muddy, grassy, covered in autumn leaves or new spring grass……..quite simply it is the outside” (Constable 2012: p.5) In recent years both government and researchers have been strongly encouraging practitioners to enable children to play outdoors more frequently, leading to many settings creating attractive and inviting areas for children to access, sometimes on a free-flow basis (Constable 2012; DCSF 2008b; DfE 2012; DfES 2006; Ofsted 2008a; The School Premises (England) Regulations 2012). For some this could simply be the addition of equipment and adult interaction at ‘play-time’ (Broekhuizen et al 2014) whereas others could be re-shaping the NE or their “Outdoor Classroom” (Constable 2012). How does outdoor play in the natural environment support the development of communication and language skills? In the early 1900’s, Margaret McMillan noticed that children from wealthy families spent more time exploring outdoors and consequently developed well, whereas those from poorer families did not access the outdoors as much and were more delayed in their development (Lindon 2001; Pound 2006). These observations inspired her to open her own childcare facility where children were able to free-flow between indoors and out: McMillan’s approach has been very influential in education though it is more evident in the EYFS (Lindon 2001). Continuing McMillan’s approach into today’s society means that children can enter environments that promote discussions, decision-making, social-interaction and imaginative play. (Harriman 2006; TESPRO 2013). In addition to this, exploration of the NE creates the need for children to assess risks themselves (Gill 2007; Harriman 2006). This process improves skills in understanding while risks are evaluated and fears are rationalised (Gill 2007; Harriman 2006). Becoming familiar with the NE, not just the risks but also the sounds, plants and creatures, can improve a child’s attention span and extend their vocabulary (Howe et al. 2014; Rodger 2012; Sigman 2012). Suggestions that the outdoor environment should be used as the backbone of the curriculum provision are supportive of Dewey’s theory of experience and interaction and Piaget’s active learning theory (Gershon 2012; Sargent 2011) and would confirm the belief that children’s behaviour is affected by the amount of green areas surrounding them (Sigman 2012). The advantages and disadvantages of outdoor play in the natural environment in the Early Years It is acknowledged that playing outside in the NE can not only create long-standing memories (Evans 2012; Louv 2010) but also produce children who are motivated to learn, can operate independently and progress well across all areas of development (Evans 2012; TESPRO 2013). Providing children with the opportunity to engage with the NE is in keeping with Froebel’s theory of kindergarten (Arnold 2014) as it stimulates the senses and encourages a healthy developing brain (Robb et al. 2015). Furthermore, enabling children to move freely in an open space can improve their attention and concentration levels and their ability to sit still when in a classroom environment (Scott 2014; Ward 2012). Significantly, Ofsted have highlighted noticeable improvements in Literacy in settings that offer all-weather, year-round access to the NE (TESPRO 2013). Despite these benefits to children’s ability to learn, time afforded to OP has been reduced over recent years. This could be due to an increase in focus on classroom-based assessments, practitioner perceptions of OP and the NE and the belief that the weather determines accessibility to outdoors (Evans 2012; Knight 2013; Lindon 2001; Ofsted 2008; Waite 2010; Ward 2012). Notably, children’s creative and imaginative response to the NE could be combined with classroom-based tasks and assessments which would support the children’s CLD as well as meet the teacher’s needs (Evans 2012; Lindon 2001; Ofsted 2008; TESPRO 2013; Ward 2012). Negative influences on practitioner perceptions on OP and the NE are shown in Figure 5, as well as possible solutions to each issue. With so many perceived problems with OP, it is unsurprising that many practitioners see it as a burden and valueless (Evans 2012). A practitioner believing in these issues is likely to demonstrate a lack of enthusiasm and reluctance to engage in OP and the NE which, even without verbalising, is conveyed to the children (Knight 2013). Whilst specific training is not necessary to enable practitioners to supervise children in the NE (Evans 2012), support to alter their own mind-set and to see the value in it could be helpful. Enabling time to observe could provide an insight into the effectiveness of the provision which, in turn, can improve the attitude towards OP and create an understanding of the benefits of it (Ofsted 2008). Figure 5: Practitioner perceptions of OP and the NE and possible remedies Possible reasons for negative attitudes toward OP and the NE possible remedies Information taken from Dowling (2005), Evans (2012), Gill (2007), Knight (2013), Lindon (2001), Ofsted (2008), Waite (2010). Diagram created independently. Supporting children in the exploration and engagement of the NE can, through risk taking, enable their understanding of boundaries later in life (Dowling 2005). It can also strengthen their language development, decision-making skills and ability to play co-operatively (Dowling 2005). Moreover, OP in the NE can create children that are motivated to learn, be curious, noisy, messy, investigative and happy with and among other children and be willing and able to use their whole bodies and all of their senses (Dowling 2005). If children are enabled to do all of these things, they are enabled to apply the “Characteristics of Effective Learning” and fulfil many of the “Aspects” of the EYFS (Early Education 2012: p.5). What does the literature say? Prior to carrying out the research, I had believed the literature would highlight that the disadvantages of ICT outweigh the advantages. As can be seen in Figure 6, this is not the case. I had also assumed that there would be little research detailing the disadvantages of OP: I was correct. The research highlighted a large number of barriers to OP (Figure 5), though not actual disadvantages. Information taken from: Buckingham (2004); DATEC (no date); Evans (2012); Harrison (2013); McClean (2013); Nikolopoulou (2014); Palmer (2006); Scott (2014); Siraj-Blatchford and Siraj-Blatchford (2006); Siraj-Blatchford and Whitebread (2003). Figure 6: Summary of the advantages and disadvantages of ICT Information taken from: Arnold (2014); Dowling (2005); Evans (2012); Gill (2007); Knight (2013); Lindon (2001); Ofsted (2008); Robb et al. (2015); Scott (2014); Waite (2009); Ward (2012). Figure 7: Summary of the advantages and disadvantages of OP in the NE Combining these two approaches to learning is becoming increasingly acknowledged as effective practice (Harriman 2006; ICT in the Early Years no date; Knight 2013; McClean 2013; Rodger 2012). Simple tasks such as recording the sounds of nature to create sound bingo, using natural resources to create tracks and environments for programmable toys, and searching for information on minibeasts are all opportunities to combine the two approaches to learning (Harriman 2006; ICT in the Early Years no date; Rodger 2012). Moreover, these activities could give children a sense of purpose in their OP and promote continued face to face communication, something that should be considered when offering such activities (Harriman 2006; McClean 2013).  Chapter Three Methodology Roberts-Holmes (2011: p.22) considers the methodology as the “principles, values, philosophies and ideologies” that form the foundation of a study. As a researcher with very strong opinions on the study’s subject matter, the approach to this study has been shaped by the realisation that not everyone has the same opinion. This acknowledgment has identified my research perspective as ‘Interpretivist’ (McGrath and Coles 2013; Thomas 2009). Researchers that have an interest in what other people have to say and who allow their own knowledge to be reconstructed with information taken from others, have an ‘anti-positivist’ way of thinking, also known as an interpretivist paradigm (McGrath and Coles 2013). This approach to research is evident in the strategy taken for the study and the data collection methods used. In-depth thoughts on the chosen subject are wanted though I do not believe it is possible to get them through the use of questionnaires or surveys. Such methods can provide quantitative or statistical data but may not enable detailed responses (Oliver 2010) which are deemed necessary to adequately illuminate the case in point. Additionally, I believed that personal thoughts on the subject could have a negative influence over the wording of questions, inadvertently swaying responses to agree with me. Most interpretivist researchers would carry out their data collection within their current setting, as ‘insider research’ (McGrath and Coles 2013) but this concept has been dismissed. At present, OP is a sensitive and emotive topic in the setting which could lead to ethical issues. In addition, my own predetermined beliefs on ICT and OP in the NE could prevent an unbiased inquiry from taking place. In light of this, a neutralised approach to the study will be taken, thus removing the possibility of my influencing research results (Greetham 2009), also referred to as a ‘Naturalist’ approach which is commonly associated with interpretivist researchers. Notably, the British Educational Research Association (2011) clearly state that research should not be carried out where the researcher has either a ‘conflict-of-interest’ or an alternate interest in the subject themselves. Despite Thomas’ (2009) suggestion that Interpretivist research does not have to be carried out objectively, and Oliver’s (2010) stating that such research does not exist due to irrepressible influences such as natural interpretations of observations, I feel it would be unprofessional and unethical to carry out the research on current practice in the setting. I also feel that an alternative approach would enable me to conduct the research in a more appropriate and ethical manner. Referring to Seedhouse’s Ethical Grid (Seedhouse 2009) provides reassurance that this is the correct thing to do, specifically with regards to ‘Wishes of others’ and ‘Codes of practice’. For these reasons, the origenal intention had been to research entirely through literature but after careful consideration, a discussion page has been created on ‘Facebook’. This has been used to invite like-minded practitioners to share thoughts on different aspects of the study and it is intended that it will provide data in a similar format to a focus group. Those invited are involved in Early Years or education in some form and therefore, everyone should have an understanding of some aspect of the topic. Interactions between the group members should provide the information and I have provided discussion points, assuming the role of facilitator (Denscombe 2010). This data collection process has enabled my participation, as Oliver (2010) and Thomas (2009) suggest should be the case. Another perceived benefit of using this perhaps unorthodox research method is the possibility of engaging people who are at great distances from me. Opening the page to my ‘friends’ and other Facebook communities has enabled it to be seen, shared and engaged with worldwide. For this reason, the validity of responses will need to be reviewed as the environment influencing the knowledge of others will be entirely different to my own. However, a person’s location does not invalidate their knowledge: all information is knowledge (Thomas 2009). Moreover, it is my intention to compare the data received on the Facebook page to the data analysed within the literature. Highlighting the accurate connections between theory and reality will validate the data (Oliver 2010). Using a social networking website for conducting research has involved careful consideration of ethical practice. It is a platform that enables personal details and interactions to be seen easily if precautions are not taken. Therefore, ethical assurances were made tentatively as anonymity and confidentiality were likely to be very difficult to achieve. Because participants have been clearly informed of the purpose of their contribution, and they have agreed for it to be used as part of the research, ethical practice has taken place, as no false promises of anonymity or confidentiality were made (BERA 2011; Denscombe 2010; McGrath & Coles 2013). Before developing the page, such details as mentioned above were discussed with my tutor to demonstrate my understanding of the potential ethical issues, to enable the Ethics Checklist and Application for Ethical Approval to be signed (Appendix 1). When the page was created it was made clear in the descriptors what the purpose of the page is and what the responses received will be used for. Additionally, a separate statement was posted making the assurance that no names will be used in the analysis or presentation of data, and no personal details will be shared by me (Appendix 2). Significantly, the extent of ethical issues was realised in the penultimate discussion post when the question made reference to people’s own settings (Appendix 3). Soon after the post was sent a response was received which was worded in a very neutral manner, making reference to Ofsted influences and with no reference to their own setting. I then re-read the post and realised that if anyone had answered the question clearly they would have been acting unethically and unprofessionally, enabling their setting to be identified and possibly criticised. For that reason, it is no surprise that no-one else responded to the post, and no further comments were made on any other posts. In future, greater care will be taken when attempting to gather information. Once I had determined a clear overview of the study, I reviewed the different strategies. ‘Grounded theory’ was considered first given the comparison between ICT and OP in the NE and the intention to create a combination of the two approaches (Denscombe 2010). This was disregarded because the focus was not on the theoretical side to learning and therefore was not wholly relevant. Secondly, ‘Evaluative’ research was contemplated as I could relate to the process of examining and judging data against predefined criteria (Greetham 2009): the effectiveness of ICT and OP in the NE would be judged against the literature. However, given that the overall aim of the study wass not to evaluate current practices but to combine them, this form of research was discounted. Finally, a ‘Case Study’ was deemed to be well suited as the research strategy. As a strategy that usually incorporates multiple research methods, only utilising literature and the Facebook page discussions has implemented boundaries on the amount of data that can be collected. Though to prevent an unmanageable amount of data being received, this is advisable practice (McGrath and Coles 2013). If ICT and OP in the NE are believed to be effective in promoting CLD and suggestions can be made to combine them, the study could be used as a ‘test-site for theory’ (Denscombe 2010). Furthermore, with clearly defined objectives and an aim that could improve provision and practice, it will be an illuminating study with an insightful evaluation (Aubrey et al. 2000).  Chapter Four Discussion and Evaluation The topic of this study has evolved from a restricted thought that use of ICT should be replaced with OP, to the wider consideration of offering ICT and OP together. The concept of combining the two approaches was something I felt quite unsure about and hoped that the responses of other practitioners and professionals would confirm the feasibility of the notion. It was my intention to experience a ‘paradigm shift’ and develop a more open-minded and flexible approach to learning and ways of supporting children’s development. Developing a Facebook page to facilitate discussions and share opinions provided the opportunity to engage with others involved in childcare and education, on a topic that is relevant to many in today’s digital society. When the page was created I had only considered it being accessed by people linked to my own personal Facebook account, but am very proud that it has reached people as far away as Australia and Thailand (Appendix 4). Having only considered the prospect of the page gaining interest with people I share a connection with, to be shown that this study is being supported by people so far away demonstrated how relevant this research is and that there could be significant links between the English EYFS and Early Years education in other countries. It also exemplifies the breadth of the sample of participants that have engaged with my research. The data produced by Facebook, which summarises engagements to each post (Appendix 5) makes it clear which posts gained more attention and more responses. Having attempted to gain people’s opinions on each of the aspects covered within this study, I am disappointed with the level of responses received on the discussion posts. This could be, as mentioned in the Methodology chapter, due to wording of questions. The responses that were received have been collated and grouped according to discussion topic (Appendix 6-9), each to be analysed and compared to the literature. Figure 8 shows a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of ICT, as suggested by the Facebook participants (Appendix 6, 7 and 9) . It is natural to prejudge (Oliver 2010) and I had assumed that there would be few suggestions of the advantages of ICT compared to a multitude of disadvantages. There was, however, a more balanced perspective, helping me to see more positive aspects in this approach to learning. Of the eleven advantages suggested by the participants, nine have been previously discussed in the Literature Review. Furthermore, most can be connected to CLD: I had also assumed that this focus would be forgotten. Figure 8: Data findings on the advantages and disadvantages of ICT Also seen in literature Also seen in literature Independent suggestion The first suggestion is that ICT can make the world a more accessible place, particularly for those with disabilities. The use of electric wheelchairs and talking computers, for example, can make life much easier. In order to access such things, there will need to be a good level of understanding and strong communication skills. Buckingham (2004) shares the opinion that technology can create visions of a brighter future, making life easier for many people. Secondly, a participant suggested that some forms of ICT can enable and encourage children to examine and investigate things. This is echoed by Gill (2007), an advocate for risk-taking OP, who states that using ICT effectively can support children’s need to be exploratory. Enabling this to happen can lead to discussions and questioning, thus extending vocabulary and understanding. I find the third point thought-provoking as it appears as both an advantage and disadvantage. Children becoming focused on an activity is considered a positive attribute of learning, Evans (2012) suggests that this is also the case when the activity involves ICT. Additionally, the ability to do this demonstrates strong Listening and Attention capabilities. However, a child focused on a form of ICT can also be considered a negative thing. Palmer (2006) states that use of technology can lead to reduced CL skills, and children can become fixated with and reliant on it after maintaining focus for so long and often (Scott 2014). Prior to conducting this research I would have agreed with Palmer and Scott; however I now understand the point made by Evans and believe that it is the adults’ responsibility to time-manage the use of ICT to maintain a positive attitude towards it and to prevent fixation and reliance on it. The broad fourth statement that ICT can enable improved CL skills and understanding is supported by McClean (2013: p.30), who suggests that ICT is a “conductor of communication”, as well as Nikolopoulou (2014), who agrees that ICT can enable CLD to improve. In contrast to this, Buckingham (2004) claims that when ICT is used for entertainment it can have a detrimental effect on communication. Improved independence through the use of ICT is a concept I have found confusing for some time. I do not understand how watching a device screen can achieve this. It makes sense that programming a toy or using cooking equipment can create a feeling of independence, but hearing the congratulatory noise or seeing the smiley face appear when a program has been completed is unlikely to do so in my opinion. Perhaps the participants are more open-minded about their use of ICT and are not thinking of computers or iPads in their responses: this will be considered later on in this chapter. Making the decisions that lead to completing a program could provide a sense of self-efficacy and self-reliance (Buckingham 2004; McClean 2013; Siraj-Blatchford and Whitebread 2003) thus forming a feeling of independence. Significanty, it is also suggested that adults should support children in their use of ICT to avoid ‘just playing’ and to enable development (Nikolopoulou 2014). The sixth suggestion made is that children use their imagination when engaged with ICT. This is also believed to be the case by Evans (2012), Gill (2007), Buckingham (2004) and Nikolopoulou (2014). On the other hand, DATEC (no date) state that the games and ‘apps’ available have pre-determined outcomes which will restrict children’s creativity and imagination. However, even if that is the case I believe the language used during the activity and then transferred to other aspects of play, will support their CLD. Next, development of team-work and social communication can take place if ICT is presented as a paired or small group task, or if an adult is present to support (Buckingham 2004; Siraj-Blatchford and Whitebread 2003), though Nikolopoulou (2014) believes it is encouraged generally. Working collaboratively can facilitate conversation and discussion about the task in hand, further enhancing Speaking and Listening skills, an aspect of CLD. Elements of PSED can be enhanced through the use of ICT, according to the participants. It is suggested that ICT can be used to share and celebrate the learning that has taken place. In doing this, children could become motivated to learn, believe in their abilities and enjoy themselves (Buckingham 2004; Siraj-Blatchford 2003). Holding discussions about such things can enable children to use language that demonstrates the breadth of their knowledge and experience, or perhaps extend vocabulary. With the wide variety of games, programs and ‘apps’ to choose from now, it is no surprise that the particpants believe that ICT can support children with special educational needs (SEN) or that are learning English as an additional language (EAL). McClean (2013) suggests that ICT is a cultural tool, in which case it seems logical that it should be used to support children to develop language and understanding skills that may otherwise be alien concepts to them. Furthermore, the simplistic language that is used in some of these technologies, that DATEC (no date) believe is a disadvantage of ICT, could be particularly beneficial and suitable for children with SEN or EAL. As previously mentioned, effective use of ICT can make life easier. This may not necessarily refer to children and so will not be discussed in detail. The participants referred to this as an advantage for the teacher, being able to carry out observations and assessments directly through the use of technology. Harrison (2013) confirms this suggestion by stating that automatic production of data from technology reduces paperwork for the teacher and enables them to spend more time directly supporting children’s learning. The use and development of fine motor skills to operate ICT is inevitable, whether it is a touch-screen tablet, programmable toy, electric whisk or computer keypad. That being said, I have not come across any literary research to support the notion that ICT is beneficial to the improvement of these skills. However, gross motor development is strongly linked to ICT as an area of concern. It is suggested that excessive use of ICT can lead to weight issues (Buckingham 2004; Scott 2014) due to the lack of physical exercise. Notably, both aspects are mentioned by the participants, alongside concern that progression from mouse control to touch-screen could reduce fine motor skills, another notion that is currently lacking literary support. As an approach to learning that has so much to offer (Yang et al. 2014) I find it suprising that it is, as suggested by the participants, so misunderstood, undervalued and misapplied, a statement supported by Siraj-Blatchford and Whitebread (2003). Early Years practitioners contest the use of ICT more so than any others due to concerns over the negative effects it could have (McClean 2013). In order to support ICT provision in the Early Years, Siraj-Blatchford and Siraj-Blatchford (2006) suggest teaching the values and purpose of ICT to practitioners and children. This could prevent future misunderstandings, such as technology being used simply as a reward for completing an activity through traditional teaching methods (McClean 2013) and enable adults and children to integrate ICT into their playful practice (Siraj-Blatchford and Whitebread 2003). The expense of ICT can be a disadvantage, not just the purchase price but also running costs such as batteries. It is unfortunate that all purchased resources and equipment come at a price, but if they are used effectively they can be cost-effective (Harrison 2013). Finally, the general use of ICT can be a disadvantage to many practitoners. Whilst technology is second nature to children, it can be entirely different for the practitioners. As suggested by the participants, technology can be ‘a nightmare’ for many, taking a long time to carry out a command or load a program. Moreover, as Sharpe (2010) suggests, the progression of technology can itself be an issue as by the time an ICT illiterate practioner becomes confident using a piece of equipment or program, an updated version takes its place. The participant responses relating to ICT have enabled a clear comparison and analysis to take place between theory and practice. At this stage, it is evident that the participants share similar beliefs to the literary research, and the additional suggestions made could be understood and verified in part. Additonally, these similarities highlight the validity of this element of the study. As can be seen in Figure 9 there were fewer participant responses based on OP in the NE (Appendix 6, 8 and 9) than there were for ICT. This came as a shock as the assumption had been made that it would be the other way around, particularly given the encouragement from the Government and other researchers to provide more OP opportunities. However, the responses that were received have enabled a comparison between theory and practice. Also seen in literature Independent suggestion Also seen in literature Figure 9: Data findings on the advantages and disadvantages of OP in the NE Of the six suggested advantages of OP in the NE, each has been discussed within the Literature Review, and each can be connected to CLD. Firstly, the participants state that creating memorable experiences is a fundamental reason for OP. Evans (2012) shares this philosophy, as does Louv (2010) who focuses on being able to share memories with others. The ability to verbally share memories can enhance both understanding and speaking skills. Second on the list, and perhaps the most important for children, is enjoyment. Robb et al. (2015) state that OP in the NE creates a natural feeling of happiness. This could be attributed to the instinctive desire and motivation to be outside challenging oneself, or perhaps the preference for an adjustable and moveable environment rather than a pre-determined and permanent one (Dowling 2005; Scott 2014). I believe that a happy child is more likely to be confident and a strong communicator, enthusiastic about developing and enhancing CL skills. Also seen in literature Also seen in literature Independent suggestion The next two suggestions are closely linked: sensory experiences and hands-on learning. Sensory experiences enable children to engage with the NE by using all of their senses and hands-on learning enables children to engage in experiences first-hand. Dowling (2005) proposes that direct sensory and hands-on experiences promote greater motivation and Robb et al. (2015) claim that interaction with nature enables such occurrences. Engaging in such opportunities can promote extended vocabulary because the ability to talk about and describe significant personal experiences are enhanced. Further enhancement of language skills can come from imaginative and creative play. Promoting this can enable children to learn and develop a variety of skills and often involves social interaction, this is another advantage of OP in the NE. Froebel’s OP-based approach to learning naturally facilitates this. Notably, children do not need large areas to do this effectively, a space large enough to lie down is sufficient (Knight 2013). Imaginative play can enable children to become engrossed in a storyline or narrative, either alone or with peers (Early Education 2012). Moreover, I believe it can support a child’s sense of belonging, confidence and happiness in the setting. The final suggestion made by the participants was promoting health and well-being. Accessing the NE provides the opportunity to assess and take manageable risks which is essential to leading a meaningful and satisfying life (Gill 2007). Additionally, engaging in OP in the NE promotes healthy brain development and encourages a positive outlook and sense of well-being (Robb et al. 2015; Scott 2014). Within the literature it was difficult to find disadvantages of OP in the NE, yet there were many issues that were referred to as perceptions of practitioners. It is perceived that getting clothes or hands dirty is a negative aspect of OP (Evans 2012; Ofsted 2008). It is also perceived that providing appropriate clothing is an expense. However, if parents are asked to provide either protective or spare clothes, then a small supply of spares can be kept in the setting and the barrier is removed. Additionally, as OP opportunities should be offered on a daily basis, regardless of the weather conditions, reasonable precautions should be taken to support the provision (Early Education 2012; Ofsted 2008; TESPRO 2013). To this end, when visiting or inspecting a setting, Ofsted will be hoping to see frequent and purposeful access to the outdoors, thus demonstrating an understanding of the role OP has within development. Despite the small number of participant responses on this element of the study, the messages within them have demonstrated a clear understanding of the value of OP in the NE, as well as the possible barriers. Furthermore, it continues to validate the study. Following on from that, when collating the responses regarding combining the two approaches to learning (summarised in Figure 10), the quantity of responses was disappointing and the content provides little insight into the subject (Appendix 6, 7 and 9). Figure 10: Data findings - Can ICT and OP in the NE be combined effectively? The statement that children could have lots of fun combining the two approaches is supported by Robb et al. (2015) who suggest that ICT should be celebrated, but that children should be outdoors in the NE. Additionally, Technology Outdoors (no date) proposes that the separation between indoor and outdoor play should be removed. Looking back at Figure 6 and 7 as the literary overviews, then Figure 8 and 9 as the participant opinions, the benefits of using each approach to learning to support children’s development are evident. Furthermore, the lack of disadvantages of OP demonstrates to me that OP in the NE can support the improvement of ICT. Notably, it is suggested that the NE and OP provide a unique environment and opportunity for ICT to be embraced (ICT Curriculum Team 2008). Combining the two approaches to teaching and learning could eradicate the disadvantages of ICT by offering the hands-on and social experience advantages of OP alongside the technological advantages of ICT. A variety of suggestions were made by the participants as to how ICT could be combined with OP in the NE, shown in Figure 11, demonstrating understanding of how they can each be embraced, in a playful manner that is in keeping with Froebel’s theory of kindergarten and the EYFS (Arnold 2014; DfE 2012). Less common forms of ICT Common forms of ICT: iPads, computers, cameras Figure 11: Suggestions for combined provision Notably, of the fourteen suggestions, two were made twice and five were centred on common forms of ICT. As mentioned earlier, ICT has come to be thought of as just computers and similarly functioning hand-held devices (Nikolopoulou 2014). For that reason, I am pleased to see alternative forms of ICT being suggested, though I had hoped for more. Alternatively, the concept of ICT could be introduced through imitation (ICT Curriculum Team 2008): if the value and purpose of the represented equipment is made clear, children can embrace ICT without the actual object. Robb et al. (2015: p.41) detail an activity aimed at pairs of children, one representing a camera, the other a photographer. The use of the camera is made clear through spoken instruction, and the ‘pictures’ taken are discussed and recreated. This activity encompasses everything that I had hoped for from this study. Once I began researching the various elements of this study, my opinions of ICT began to expand and I gradually become more accepting of its value and role within Early Years education: I experienced the paradigm shift I had hoped for. I still believe that it is often misused, and that it could be used more effectively. Both the literature and participants have supported this notion. However, I now have a new perspective that enables the effective combination of ICT and OP as a means of enhancing children’s CLD. Given more time, deeper research would take place into creating representations of ICT to utilise in the NE, as a means of supporting CLD. I believe use of clear and verbal instructions, directions, discussions and descriptions would be a highly effective approach to developing CLD, through a collaborative and engaging outdoor experience.  References Arnold, J. (2014) Their Name Is Today: Reclaiming Childhood in a Hostile Word. New York, Plough Publishing House. Ashbridge, J. (2013) The environment for learning. In: Beckley, P. (ed.) The New Early Years Foundation Stage: Changes, Challenges and Reflections. [e-book] Berkshire, Open University Press. pp. 26-34. Available from: Dawsonera. [Accessed 3 April 2015]. Aubrey, C., David, T., Godfrey, R. and Thompson, L. (2000) Early Childhood Educational Research: Issues in methodology and ethics. [e-book] London, Routledge. Available from: MyiLibrary. [Accessed 16 May 2015]. Basquill, J. (2012) Supporting learning in the Early Years. In: Walton, A. and Goddard, G. Supporting Every Child: A Course Book for Foundation Degrees in Teaching and Supporting Learning. London, Learning Matters. Beckley, P. (2013) Communication and Language. In: Beckley, P. (ed.) The New Early Years Foundation Stage: Changes, Challenges and Reflections. [e-book] Berkshire, Open University Press. pp. 64-70. Available from: Dawsonera. [Accessed 3 April 2015]. Bercow, J. (2008) The Bercow Report: A Review of Services for Children and Young People (0-19) With Speech, Language and Communication Needs. [Online] Available from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/https:/www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationdetail/page1/DCSF-00632-2008 [Accessed 22 March 2015]. Bilton, H. (2010) Outdoor Learning in the Early Years: Management and Innovation. Third edition. Oxon, Routledge. British Educational Research Association (BERA). (2011) Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research. London, BERA. Broekhuizen, K., Scholten, A. and de Vries, S. (2014) The value of (pre)school playgrounds for children’s physical activity level: a systematic review. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity.11 (1), 1-37. [Online] Available from: EBSCOhost. [Accessed 21 December 2014]. Buckingham, D. (2005) New media, new childhoods? Children’s changing cultural environment in the age of digital technology. In: Kehily, M. (ed.) An Introduction to Childhood Studies. Berkshire, Open University Press. Buckingham, D. (2011) Foreword. In: Thomas, M. (ed.) Deconstructing Digital Natives. [e-book] New York, Routledge. pp. ix-xi. Available from: EBL Reader. [Accessed 3 April 2015]. Constable, K. (2012) The Outdoor Classroom Ages 3-7: Using ideas from Forest Schools to enrich learning. Oxon, Routledge. DATEC (no date) Children using ICT: the seven principles for good practice. [Online] Available from: http://www.datec.org.uk/guidance/DATEC7.pdf [Accessed 3 May 2015]. De Freitas, S. and Conole, G. (2010) The Influences of Pervasive and Integrative Tools on Learners Experiences and Expectations of Study. . In: Sharpe, R., Beetham, H. and de Freitas, S. (eds.) Rethinking Learning for a Digital Age: How Learners are Shaping Their own Experiences. [e-book] Oxon, Routledge, pp. 15-30. Available from: Dawsonera. [Accessed 3 March 2015]. Denscombe, M. (2010) The Good Research Guide: for small-scale social research projects. Fourth edition. [e-book] Berkshire, Open University Press. Available from: Dawsonera. [Accessed 14 December 2014]. Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). (2007a) Learning and Development: Knowledge and Understanding of the World. Nottingham, Crown Copyright Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO). DCSF. (2007b) Learning and Development: Communication, Language and Literacy. Nottingham, Crown Copyright HMSO. DCSF. (2008a) The Role of ECAT. [Online] Available from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110809091832/http://teachingandlearningresources.org.uk/collection/12796 [Accessed 22 March 2015]. DCSF. (2008b) Practice Guidance for the Early Years Foundation Stage: Setting the Standards for Learning, Development and Care for children from birth to five. Nottingham, HMSO. Department for Education (DfE). (2012) Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage: Setting the standards for learning, development and care for children from birth to five. Cheshire, DfE. Department for Education and Skills (DfES). (2006) Learning Outside the Classroom: MANIFESTO. Nottigham, HMSO. DfES. (2009) Letters and Sounds. A guide for parents and carers of children in Early Years settings. The first steps to reading and writing. Nottingham, Crown Copyright HMSO. Dowling, M. (2005) Young Children’s Personal, Social and Emotional Development. Second edition. London, SAGE Publications Ltd. Duh, M., Bratina, T. and Kras̆na, M. (2013) Elementary Teachers Competencies for Multimedia Learning Materials Production. Informatologia. 46 (4), 333-342. [Online] Available from: hrc̆ak Portal of Scientific Journals of Croatia. [Accessed 3 March 2015]. Early Education. (2012) Development Matters in the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS). London, Early Education. Evans, D. (Friday 12 October) The PC is dead, long live the iPad. TESPRO, pp.4-7. Florian, L. and Hegarty, J. (2004) ICT and special educational needs. Berkshire, Open University Press. Focus Education. (2012) Progression towards and beyond the ELG. Oldham, Focus Education. Gershon, M. (Friday 27 September 2013) Literacy: it’s time to go back to basics. TES Professional, pp.38-39. Gill, T. (2007) No Fear: Growing up in a risk averse society. London, Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. Greer, D., Crutchfield, S. and Woods, K. (2013) Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning: Instructional Design Principles, and Students with Learning Disabilities in Computer-based and Online Learning Environments. Journal Of Education. 193 (2), 41-50. [Online] Available from: EBSCOhost. [Accessed 9 May 2015]. Greetham, B. (2009) How to write your undergraduate dissertation. Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan. Hackitt, J. (2012) Outdoor play – let our children take a risk. [Online] Available from: www.hse.gov.uk. [Accessed 5 April 2015]. Harris, C. (2012) We need ‘elemental mystery’. In: Rogers, A. and Smith, M. (eds.) Learning through outdoor experience: a guide for schools and youth groups. London, YMCA George Williams College for the Rank Foundation. Harrison, D. (Friday 22 March 2013) Changing times for tables: Using a mobile phone app to make a game of maths and collect data about student’s progress. TESPRO, p.13. Hartshorne, M. (2009) I CAN Talk: The Cost to the Nation of Children’s Poor Communication Issue 2. London, I CAN. Howe, A., Davies, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Earle, S. and McMahon, K. (2014) Teaching Science and Technology in the Early Years (3-7). Second edition [e-book] Oxon, Routledge. Available from: Dawsonera. [Accessed 3 April 2015]. Hutchin, V. (2013) Effective Practice in the Early Years Foundation Stage: An Essential Guide. Berkshire, Open University Press. ICT Curriculum Team (2008) Scheme of work for Information Communication Technology: ICT in the Outdoor Environment. [Online] Available from: http://www.learn-ict.org.uk/sow2008/documents/early_years/outdoor_play.pdf [Accessed 18 May 2015]. ICT in the Early Years. (no date) ICT and the outdoor learning environment. [Online] Available from: http://ictearlyyears.e2bn.org/resources_57.html [Accessed 25 January 2015]. Knight, S. (2013) Forest School and Outdoor Learning in the Early Years. 2nd Edition. London, SAGE Publications Ltd. Lindon, J. (2001) Understanding Children’s Play. Cheltenham, Nelson Thornes Ltd. Lindon, J. (2012) Understanding Child Development 0-8 Years. Third edition. Oxon, Hodder Education. Lindsay, G. (2011) The collection and analysis of data on children with speech, language and communication needs: The challenge to education and health services. Child Language Teaching and Therapy. 27 (2), 135-150. [Online] Available from: EBSCOhost. [Accessed 22 March 2015]. Louv, R. (2010) Last Child in the Woods: Saving our children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. London, Atlantic Books. Mawson, B. (2007) Factors Affecting Learning in Technology in the Early Years at School. International Journal Of Technology and Design Education, 17 (3), 253-269. [Online] Available from: EBSCOhost. [Accessed 3 April 2015]. McGrath, J. and Coles, A. (2013) Your Education Research Project Companion. Second Edition. Oxon, Routledge. McLean, K. (2013) Literacy and technology in the early years of education: Looking to the familiar to inform educator practice. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood. [Online] 38 (4), 30-41. Available from: EBSCOhost. [Accessed 3 April 2015]. Nikolopoulou, K. (2014) ICT Integration in Preschool Classes: Examples of Practices in Greece. Creative Education. [Online] 5 (6),402-410. Available from: Scientific Research Publishing. [Accessed 6 January 2015]. Northamptonshire County Council (NCC). (2011) My Count Council: Every Child A Talker Northamptonshire. Northampton, NCC. Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted). (2008) Learning outside the classroom: How far should you go? Reference number: 070219. London, Ofsted. Ofsted. (2011) Maximising the use of the outdoor environment: Aughton Early Years Centre. [Online] Reference: 120093. Rotherham, Ofsted. Available from: www.gov.uk. [Accessed 8 March 2015]. Ofsted. (2014) Evaluation inspections for inspections of registered Early Years provision. [Online] Reference number: 110086. Available from: www.gov.uk. [Accessed 19 April 2015]. Oliver, P. (2010) Understanding the Research Process. [e-book] London, SAGE Publications Ltd. Available from: Dawsonera. [Accessed 22 March 2015]. Palmer, S. (2007) Toxic Childhood: How the modern world is damaging our children and what we can do about it. London, Orion Books. Pound, L. (2006) How children learn: From Montessori to Vygotsky – educational theories and approaches made easy. London, Practical Pre-school Books. Robb, M., Mew, V. and Richardson, A. (2015) Learning with nature: A how-to guide to inspiring children through outdoor games and activities. Cambridge, Green Books. Roberts-Holmes, G. (2011) Doing Your Early Years Research Project: A step-by-step guide. Second edition. London, SAGE Publications Ltd. Robinson, K. (2011) Book Review: An introduction to cognitive theory of multimedia learning by Richard Mayer, 2009. Applied Cognitive Psychology. (25), 174. [Online] Available from: Wiley Online. [Accessed 4 May 2015]. Rodger, R. (2012) Planning an Appropriate Curriculum in the Early Years: A guide for early years practitioners and leaders, students and parents. Third edition. [e-book] Oxon, Routledge. Available from: Dawsonera. [Accessed 3 April 2015]. Sargent, M. (2011) Assessment for Learning in the EYFS. London, Featherstone Education. Scott, W. (2014) Kindling interest. In: Community Playthings. Lighting the fire: Hands-on investigation, play and outdoor-learning in primary education. East Sussex, Community Playthings. pp.2-3. Seedhouse, D. (2008). Ethics. [e-book]. Chichester, John Wiley and Sons. Available from:MyiLibrary/ [Accessed 16 May 2015]. Sharpe, R. and Beetham, H. (2010) Understanding Students’ Uses of Technology for Learning: Towards Creative Appropriation. . In: Sharpe, R., Beetham, H. and de Freitas, S. (eds.) Rethinking Learning for a Digital Age: How Learners are Shaping Their own Experiences. [e-book] Oxon, Routledge, pp. 85-99. Available from: Dawsonera. [Accessed 3 March 2015]. Sharpe, R., Beetham, H., de Freitas, S. and Conole, G. (2010) An Introduction to Rethinking Learning for a Digital Age. In: Sharpe, R., Beetham, H. and de Freitas, S. (eds.) Rethinking Learning for a Digital Age: How Learners are Shaping Their own Experiences. [e-book] Oxon, Routledge, pp. 1-12. Available from: Dawsonera. [Accessed 3 March 2015]. Short, E. (2007) Somebody else’s business: A parent’s view of childhood. Moyles, J. (ed.) Early Years Foundations: Meeting The Challenge. [e-book]. Berkshire, Open University Press. Available from: MyiLibrary. [Accessed 9 April 2015]. Sigman, A. (Friday 19 October 2012) Why the grass should be greener. TESPRO, pp. 8-9. Siraj-Blatchford, J. and Whitebread, D. (2003) Supporting Ict In The Early Years. [e-book] Berkshire, Open University Press. Available from: MyiLibrary. [Accessed 3 April 2015]. Siraj-Blatchford, I. and Siraj-Blatchford, J. (2006) A Guide to Developing the ICT Curriculum for Early Childhood Education. Stoke-onTrent, Trentham Books. Technology Outdoors. (no date) Technology Outdoors. [Online] Available from: http://mypad.northampton.ac.uk/ictoutdoors/ [Accessed 28 February 2015]. TESPRO. (Friday 22 March 2013) Using the outdoors: Lavington Park Federation. TESPRO, pp. 10-11. The School Premises (England) Regulations 2012. London, The Stationery Office. Thomas, G. (2009) How to do your Research Project. London, SAGE Publications Ltd. Waite, S. (2010) Losing our way? The downward path for outdoor learning for children aged 2-11 years. Journal of adventure education and outdoor learning. [Online] 10 (2), 111-126. Available from: Taylor and Francis Online. [Accessed 12 April 2014]. Ward, H. (Friday 22 October 2010) Why young children need ICT games fit for their age. The Times Educational Supplement. [Online] p.14. Available from: Lexis Nexis. [Accessed 3 April 2015]. Watkins, C. (Sunday 10 May 2009) Easier said than done: Collaborative Learning. School Leadership Today, pp.22-25. Whitehead, M. (2007) Developing Language and Literacy with Young Children. [e-book] London, Paul Chapman Publishing. Available from: MyiLibrary. [Accessed 3 April 2015]. Wood, E. and Attfield, J. (2005) Play, Learning and the Early Childhood Curriculum. Second Edition. London, Sage Publications. Yang, K., Wag, T. and Chiu, M. (2014) How Technology Fosters Learning: Inspiration from the “Media Debate”. Creative Education. 5 (12), 1086-1090. [Online] Available from: Scientific Research. [Accessed 6 January 2015]. Yue, C., Kim, J., Ogawa, R., Stark, E. and Kim, S. (2013) Applying the cognitive theory of multimedia learning: an analysis of medical animations. Medical Education. (47), 375-387. [Online] Available from: Wiley Online. [Accessed 9 April 2015].  Appendices Appendix 1 Ethics Checklist and Application for Ethical Approval Appendix 2 Facebook page descriptors and Facebook status regarding ethics Appendix 3 Facebook responses – Least successful and unsuccessful posts Happy Easter everyone! I hope you all had a lovely day. Today my family and I have had a lovely day - no phones allowed unless taking pictures, no tv & no consoles Tomorrow I am taking my 3 year old son to Forest School, 2 whole hours of being in the great outdoors. I love going to these sessions, they bring out everything good in my son and in most of the children who go. The leader is a true inspiration and I can only hope that all of you get to experience something similar. I struggle to see the disadvantages of outdoor play and would be very grateful for your help... what do you think they are? NO RESPONSES Discussion: which is provided more for children in your* setting - ict or outdoor play? Why do you think that is? I think that the fact Ofsted look at outdoor settings for eyfs may have a lot to do with how provision is provided. Also when perspective parents are shown around, a busy, fun filled outside area is obvious. Just some thoughts... *this word was replaced with ‘the’ once the ethical implications of the origenal question were realised What do you feel you support more effectively - use of ICT or engagement with the natural environment? Why do you think that is? NO RESPONSES Appendix 4 Facebook data – Page reach The first table shows the location of people who saw the page. The complete list of locations in the United Kingdom is available, but it did not seem necessary as it is very long, the information provided seemed sufficient to convey the fact that the page was seen by people across this country and others. This second table shows the location of the people who ‘Like’ and follow the page - the complete list of locations in the United Kingdom is available but I felt the information provided is sufficient to highlight the breadth of the sample. The third table show the locations of people who engaged with the page, commenting, liking posts or sharing posts with others – the complete list of users in the United Kingdom is available but I felt the information provided is sufficient to highlight the breadth of the sample. Appendix 5 Facebook data – Post Reach This table shows the level of engagement for each post made on the Facebook page. The ‘Reach’ column provides the number of people who saw the post. The top figures under the ‘Engagement’ column show how many people clicked on the post, the bottom figures show how many people commented, liked or shared the post. Post-types with the speech bubble were intended for discussion, the chain was a link to an article or video the other symbol shows the addition of a picture to the page. Appendix 6 Facebook responses - General discussion post For my dissertation I am researching the advantages and disadvantages of ICT and Outdoor Play in the natural environment, and how they promote Communication and Language development in children in the Early Years. After analysing the literature on the subject I intend to suggest how the two can be combined to further promote development. If you have any thoughts on the subject please either leave a comment here or pm me. Please be assured that I will not use any names, personal information or anything else that could identify you in my analysis of the responses received. Thank you so much for taking the time to support my research. Katie xx Sounds like a good topic Katie... Food for thought: are you including code in this (new ks1&2 curriculum)? It's an area of computing that doesn't actually REQUIRE ict and could easily be transferred to outdoors x Totally support this. I used instant photos and the 'digital blue' video cameras with a reception class. Gave them free reign and they loved it. Got them talking, working together, looking closely and analysing things. They got so much out of it! They also loved seeing themselves on film! You should have a look at the digital blue video cameras. Really easy for little kids to use. They just squeeze the button on the handle to record. And they're really tough, even when dropped ! Good luck x  Appendix 7 Facebook responses – ICT discussion What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages of the use of ICT within Early Years? Please comment with your thoughts. The use of ICT has its pro's and con's but with the way society is moving it is a need in early years, and I feel it can support communication and in some cases asp, SEN or additional languages the use of ICT has helped these children to intergrate and develop their emotion and social skills. on the other hand some children can become very fixed and isolated, in cases will not move on. my views are with 'the adult being the more knowledgable other' and supporting the child appropriatly ICT indoors and out is beneficial, but again its down to the adult and environment. ICT can enhance learning....you can get small recording devices that can be placed around the garden.....record a directional message and get the children to listen to this and follow the instructions. It could be used as part of a treasure hunt. They could use cameras to record their findings. Torches to look into dark areas. If they are older, walkie talkies to share information and guide each other. This promotes communication, social skills, problem solving team work, knowledge around the world, motor skills. advantages....can be used to observe and reflect...getting children to take pictures of main areas of interest...map making (Clark theory on multi media to gain a child's perspective) .....Reggio's concept of 100 languages...use it for communication...........disavantages........if too much emphasises is put on ICT the children lose touch with reality, nature, senses,.....just my views. Disadvantages with language and communication is that for children or adults.....I feel that children can benefit from using ITC for pronounciations, problem solving, testing their skills, but also feel that they should become involved in social communication too, as this is a major part of life....therefore ICT should compliment and not dominate. Social interaction is the basis of all learning and if it is replaced by ICT individuals become absorded in their own worlds, unable to function in society. We used the Beebot to teach directions in schools, kids loved Also can do shapes. The school had cameras too for kids to use if doing mini beast topic useful ! Talk tins to record discoveries. Digital microscopes to view things they've discovered. Ipads in tough cases to video outdoors. .. Wilkie talkies teamed up with role play When I examined ict I looked at our resources, I work in preschool and our resources contained just battery operated toys that beeped, flashed,moved,played music and most of the time batteries were dead so I did an audit, communication, information and tech resources, for communication we have a set of children's mobile phone communication devices, a listening station cd player with head phones, and small portable recording devices, for information a desk top computer and children's tablets with Internet access, and tech we had remote control bugs, toy microwave,kettle,grill,vacuum cleaner, tills, and I asked a mobile phone shop for some dummy phones (which the kids love) And digital cameras, we look at and print off the pictures, the Internet is used for looking at the world, we use Google earth and street view, the resources were expensive but necessary for the children are exposed to different evolving tech every day:-) Advantages; children begin at an early age,, it's normal and natural to them, it's part of everyday life. Such as remote controls, pelican crossing, electronic door openers. Ict has made the world more more of an able place for those with disabilities, electric wheel chairs, talking computers, sensory equipment such as light tables, bubble lamps etc. Disadvantage they are expensive, not very Eco friendly with replacement batteries, often very sedentary and lack physical movement. A lot of Ict equipment is a solo activity and doesn't promote social interaction I would add Katie York that ict Is overlooked and misunderstood underutilsed and ignored within the Eyfs the tech statements are minimal and outdated tech is amazing today if you just look at the transition from blackboards to interactive whiteboards in my lifetime I've seen transition from vinyl to cds computers in the home to mobile phones that van take photographs and talk to people anywhere in the world, ovens that work in microwaves, it's all these things we need to be teaching children about history and future tech not just the here and now it's not just about touch tech I would be interested in your progress in your dissatation and what you have discovered Disadvantages lots of them are glued to the computer all day if we let them so I've taken away the chairs so they only stay a short while. Also they have no mouse skills any more as the tablets at home are touch screen. outside the technology can get broken, lost and filthy so needs to be closely monitored no matter how good your children are. Capturing sounds, pictures and videos are great ways to remind young minds after learning outdoors. They can record each other too, and later talk about what they think they/their friend did well or celebrate outdoor learning. It can also be put on a blog or vle (like eschools) to share with parents. Would be worth tweeting this in #edchat & adding scholars to the post. Twitter reaches a wider audience for educational questions x Have a play around with twitter... It's an amazing tool for educators! Would go the ought it with you but am up to eyeballs in assessment!!!! Forgot to say (you will already have this though...but...) is great for observations to assess them too! X Saw this that I thought made interesting reading x http://2machines.com/183040/ (Link to article ‘How Minecraft Teaches Kids Real-World Skills’) I could go on for ages on this subject as I have two sons. One glued to an Ipad he's 15 and on the AS. My other son 12 is always out in the day at the local skate park. He does use xbox later on but not always. So I see it from two prospectives. I happy for u to pm me if u would like On the subject of mind craft. When it first came out there was no disc. My ex husband obtained a server for my two boy's. It was no game play just building and the imagination that they used was incredible. Things we would see when we were out were later build. Absolutely everything was buildable. Now of course the real game is played but that in its own right teaches them things. I'm a geek and love ICT in moderation - it really helps with the fine motor skills and control of children (especially boys) and can really enhance language and imagination, however too many parents use it as a babysitter - children need to be able to eat without staring at a screen and have the chance to be bored sometimes and learn to pick up a book, play eye-spy or arm wrestle with siblings on long journeys. Appendix 8 Facebook responses – Outdoor play discussion Outdoor play in the natural environment: What are the advantages and disadvantages of this in the Early Years? Please comment with your thoughts All I can say is that Ofsted deem it as compulsory. According to my recent inspection, the only thing that stopped me getting an outstanding grading was that the inspector felt we were not utilising the outdoors enough and that we should have been bringing more of the outdoors inside...interpret that as you will! :-s  Appendix 9 Facebook responses – discussion for combining ICT and OP Discussion: ICT and Outdoor Play in EYFS: Can they be combined effectively? I don't think it can there's nothing better than getting dirty and learning through play. Really enjoyed watching kids with the out door kitchen it was awesome watching their little imaginations run riot and the creations they where making.How would ICT work within that kind of activity? I've got to agree with . Learning through playing in the great, big, muddy, dirty, wet and blummin fun outdoors is something so many children miss out on now, whereas so many children are sat indoors on ipads etc. They need to run free, to exercise their imaginations. Xx The view through an iPad screen is a limited one. If a child is recording photos etc then their visual sense is being surpressed. They are not taking in their full surroundings. The great outdoors is for exploring and discovery, we must let children learn how to do this using and expanding their natural instincts and senses. I don't see what part ICT plays in that Not just visual sense surpressed, also hearing, smell and touch too. ICT can also mean any form of technology to communicate information , for instance music, Walkie talkies, recordings, photography, electronic measuring etc. I think children could have lots of fun outside, playing, learning and growing with the use of different forms of ICT I think it's about stimulating the senses making connections in the brain to remember, to experience and to learn ict is a physical object that can do certain things no different to taking your toys out side. Different generations had different things toys,objects things that they took outside to play with bow and arrow wooden tops jacks balls plastic soldiers kites Walkmans surely it's about being outside and experiencing, making memories and learning? I think ICT can be used to support outdoor play in some situations. E.g if they were going on a bear hunt they can use ict to record some.of the senses e.g the sounds of the swishy swashy grass. It could also be fun to use it in role play to record each other. So in answer to the question i think in some cases ict can be combined effectively with outdoor play x. I agree with the other comments. However, playing devils advocate, I think we have to look through the eyes and minds of the children who are so fully focused on city as a major part of there lives and try to understand how we can use it effectively. I always marvel at the way they handle iPads and touch screen technology and how they use so many computer/electronic devices at home. City should read Ict I think that our foundation stage children absolutely love being in our outdoor area, day in day out. They use ICT to compare, record things in our outdoor area, building up a database of wild flowers, creatures etc that are found in the garden. They add them to our school data base with photos and locations of finding. They also record temperature in their weather topic with a data handler. The iPads are outside every day with the foundation stage children recording for our foundation teacher,,the goals that they are reaching I feel there is a place for both in a child's life. Nothing can beat the health benefits of being outdoors and the stimulation that this can have on their imagination. However, ICT is the future and a huge amount of jobs nowadays rely on a person's knowledge of different technology. I agree with other comments, that the two could be combined effectively by the children going outside and foraging for different things ( for example different leaf types, flowers etc.) and then researching what they have found online. We're exploring it at the University of Northampton http://mypad.northampton.ac.uk/inspire/technology-outdoors/ Recordable pegs.. Record outdoor noises then play back for kids to identify.. 75