Gap-crossing behavior in a standardized and a nonstandardized jumping stone configuration

14Citations
Citations of this article
29Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Over the last years, the omnipresent standardization of playgrounds-the distances between, for example, jumping stones tend to be equal-has been criticized by both scientists and architects. First, it has been argued that standardization fails to do justice to the variability in the children's action capabilities. Second, it might simplify play in that children repetitively cross over the same distance and, thus, do not have to worry about their movements anymore. In the present study we examined the gap-crossing behavior of children in both a standardized and a nonstandardized jumping stone configuration. Children, between 5 and 10 years of age, were to play in each configuration for two minutes. No significant differences between the configurations were found in the number of gaps the children crossed and the percentage of jumps (ps>0.05). However, more children crossed a gap that they perceived as challenging (i.e. gap width close to their estimated maximum jumping distance) in the nonstandardized configuration than in the standardized one. Interestingly, significant differences were found in variables reflecting the children's action preparation-the variation in both the time on a jumping stone and the numbers of steps on it was bigger in the nonstandardized playground than in the standardized one (ps<0.05). The implications of these findings are discussed for both the design of playgrounds and the academic discussions about them.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sporrel, K., Caljouw, S. R., & Withagen, R. (2017). Gap-crossing behavior in a standardized and a nonstandardized jumping stone configuration. PLoS ONE, 12(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176165

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free