“It’s important to have windows so you can get sunlight”: Understanding children’s perceptions of quality in early childhood education and care settings

Abstract

Across the globe young children are increasingly spending time in early childhood education and care (ECEC) settings. Exposure to ECEC settings is associated with positive developmental outcomes when they are of high quality. Quality rating and improvement systems (QRIS) measure and improve the quality of children’s experiences in ECEC settings. However, they rarely include children’s perspectives directly. This is at least in part due to the challenges associated with interviewing young children, and a lack of guidance on how to utilise their feedback. This study employed photovoice methodology to understand children’s preferences and perspectives related to their experiences in their ECEC setting. We then qualitatively mapped children’s responses onto a classroom level, measure of quality as a way of understanding overlap in children’s perspectives on quality in ECEC and those held by professionals in the field. Twenty-one children were interviewed from five ECEC programmes in Halifax, Canada. Children largely reported that their favourite parts of care included (1) materials/activities; (2) descriptions of the uses of physical spaces in their ECEC settings; and (3) other characteristics. Qualitative differences were found in children’s preferences based on their care setting. Some children preferred activities in designated areas, whereas other children preferred materials. Interestingly, few children stated preferences for socialising with peers or educators. The potential of this method for eliciting children’s input on their experiences and implications for policy and practice are discussed.

Keywords

early childhood education and care quality photovoice qualitative methodology

Introduction

Early childhood is a profoundly influential period in shaping children’s developmental trajectories (Shonkoff et al., 2017). Globally, most children spend a sizable portion of their day in care provided outside the home (OECD, 2019). Early childhood education and care settings (ECEC) constitute critical environments that can significantly contribute to the developmental progress of young children. Specifically, high-quality ECEC programmes offer valuable opportunities for enhanced development, particularly benefitting children facing socio-economic challenges (Bassok and Galdo, 2016; Burchinal, 2018). For instance, high ECEC quality has been associated with improved language, academic proficiency, and social skills (von Suchodoletz et al., 2023). Despite this evidence, most of the research on ECEC quality has focussed narrowly on adult-defined metrics, often overlooking how different stakeholders—especially children—perceive and experience quality in these settings.

The need to understand the perspectives of different stakeholders on quality in ECEC is not novel (Katz, 1993). Yet, limited research has been done to incorporate multiple perspectives when considering what quality is. Katz (1993) outlines four viewpoints for evaluating ECEC quality; those of children, educators, parents, and the broader community (i.e. researchers or professionals). Interestingly, the three groups that are typically involved in research (parents, educators, professionals), each highlight different attributes of ECEC settings. Members of the broader community tend to concentrate on structural aspects. Parents highlight the flexible organisation of ECEC and the sensitivity of the educators (Saleem et al., 2022). Educators emphasise the significance of work-related wellbeing, teamwork, and supportive leadership (Nislin, 2016). However, the perspective of children has been largely neglected.

Photovoice, pioneered by Wang and Burris in the 1990s, is a key methodology for understanding children’s perspectives on their childcare experiences. Photovoice has been widely used in diverse fields, including education research with young children, as its adaptability promotes flexibility to participants’ needs and sociopolitical contexts, encouraging self-introspection and enhancing verbal skills through the integration of photography and verbal expression (Butschi and Hedderich, 2021; Flick, 2007; Patton, 2002; Wang and Burris, 1997). While prior research on children’s perceptions and preferences in ECEC settings has been conducted outside of North America, limited literature on this topic using photovoice exists in North America (Sando and Sandseter, 2022; Ward, 2018; Zamani, 2016).

This study aimed to explore children’s perspectives and preferences within a Canadian context, seeking to understand their preferences and translate their experiences into actionable knowledge through meaningful narratives, using photovoice methodology. The study goals include an understanding of the aspects of care children enjoy most to capture their preferences in care. Another goal of the current study was to explore the extent to which children’s views of their care overlap with operational definitions of quality. Specifically, we qualitatively mapped children’s responses onto a theory-driven, validated observational measure of quality. This mapping allowed us to determine the extent to which children’s preferences overlapped with expert definitions of quality as well as to illustrate the potential utility of using photovoice methods to capture important aspects of care.

Importance of early childhood education and care settings

One of the primary objectives of ECEC programmes is to enhance children’s learning opportunities and increase the likelihood that all children will experience successful transitions to school (Burchinal, 2018). During the formative years, children’s interactions with their social context impacts their developmental trajectories (Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 2007), highlighting the central role of the ECEC settings. Numerous studies have shown the impact of ECEC settings on children’s development across various domains, with the programme’s quality level further influencing these outcomes. For instance, the quality of interactions between staff and children is instrumental in accounting for individual differences in behavioural, social-emotional, and academic outcomes (Cadima et al., 2016; Hong et al., 2019; Ulferts et al., 2019). Children enrolled in ECEC settings in the United States have better language, literacy, mathematics, and executive functioning skills (Weiland and Yoshikawa, 2013). There also appears to be a dose effect for specific skills, as research suggests that children who spend more time in high-quality ECEC settings demonstrate higher levels of socio-emotional skills compared to their counterparts who spend less time in such environments (von Suchodoletz et al., 2023). Additionally, research suggests that the degree of benefits of exposure to ECEC for children is contingent upon the quality of ECEC settings, in that lower quality centres may not produce any advantages and could potentially have detrimental effects on children’s development and learning (Melhuish et al., 2015). The goal of promoting equality in educational opportunities for all children may be most beneficial for children from low socio-economic families (Burchinal, 2018), as ECEC settings have the potential to compensate for educational disadvantages by providing rich and engaging learning environments. While the overall results indicate quality is of the upmost importance for children’s development, there is large variability in the quality of ECEC settings (Howe et al., 2018).

Beyond an emphasis on setting children up for success, many scholars and theorists (Dahlberg et al., 2007; Moss, 2016) argue that ECEC quality is intrinsic and holistic, placing emphasis on children’s lived experiences and overall development. From this standpoint, an overemphasis on school readiness risks narrowing the scope of early education. Instead, quality should be understood more broadly to encompass children’s wellbeing (ensure they feel safe, secure, and cared for), a sense of belonging (fostering inclusive, welcoming environments), empowerment (recognising children as capable individuals with agency), and social development through interaction and collaboration. Crucially, embracing this view of quality requires that we listen to children’s voices (Wiltz and Klein, 2001). To truly understand how children experience their environments – from what makes them feel safe to how they form relationships – we must gather information directly from them.

Theoretical framework for quality in ECEC

Attachment theory underscores the importance of early emotional connections children establish with their caregivers (Ainsworth and Bowlby, 1991; Bowlby, 1969) and serve as the foundation for their future relationships. Connections developed through positive interactions, characterised by warmth, attentiveness, and child-cantered communication, are particularly well-established in supporting children’s emotional development (Crockett et al., 2018; Thümmler et al., 2022). Notably, caregiver sensitivity, warmth, and positivity, and cognitive stimulation have been linked to improvements in language, cognitive abilities, and social skills (Bowne et al., 2017; Burchinal et al., 2010; Mashburn et al., 2008; von Suchodoletz et al., 2023). Sensitive interactions can also enhance a child’s ability to interact and empathise with others (Daniel et al., 2016).

The zone of proximal development (ZPD) is an important developmental theory where Vygotsky and Cole’s (1978) describe the optimal learning “zone.” Essentially, each child has a set of skills allowing them to accomplish certain tasks by themselves and others they can accomplish with the help of a more experienced partner or teacher. Once an educator has identified that a child needs support mastering a skill or completing a task, they can offer responsive interactions and scaffolding to support the child’s emerging skills (Bodrova and Leong, 2006). The ZPD emphasises the role of social interactions, where children can learn from adults as well as peers, fostering collaborative learning environments.

Similarly, Bronfenbrenner’s (1992) ecological systems theory highlights the broader environmental influences on child development, emphasising the interconnectedness of social, cultural, and economic contexts. This holistic perspective encourages educators to consider how these factors shape children’s learning and well-being. High-quality ECEC programmes function within children’s microsystems and should provide supportive environments that nurture positive relationships and a strong sense of belonging among children, educators, and families. Furthermore, the dynamic interactions between different systems, such as the connection between home and ECEC, which forms the mesosystem, play a crucial role in shaping developmental outcomes. By understanding these interactions, educators can implement strategies that support children within their broader ecological context, fostering both immediate and long-term developmental benefits.

Defining and measuring quality in ECEC

A widely accepted, multidimensional framework for defining quality in ECEC distinguishes between structural quality and process quality (Vandell et al., 2010). Structural quality refers to features such as educator-to-child ratios, group size, and educator qualifications—factors that create the conditions for learning and development. These elements have shown moderate but consistent associations with children’s language, literacy, and numeracy outcomes (Bowne et al., 2017; Burchinal et al., 2021; Mashburn et al., 2008). Process quality, on the other hand, captures the experiences children have within those environments, particularly the nature of daily interactions with educators and peers (OECD, 2018). Structural quality is generally understood to set the stage for process quality.

To measure these dimensions, many jurisdictions use Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (QRIS), which rely on standardised observational tools to assess both structural and process quality indicators (Vermeer et al., 2016). Two commonly used tools include the Environmental Rating Scale (ERS; Harms et al., 1998) and the Assessment for Quality Improvement (AQI; Perlman et al., 2017, 2023). While ECERS is internationally recognised, the AQI was developed and validated in the Canadian context, making it especially relevant for this study. The AQI adopts a multidomain approach, assessing quality across indicators such as daily routines, planned activities, learning environments, health and safety, and social interactions. Each domain is subdivided into observable, evidence-based indicators that collectively capture the complexity of children’s experiences in care settings. However, a fundamental issue in the development and maintenance of high quality ECEC settings is the lack of children’s input (European Commission, 2014). Children possess unique experiences, knowledge, abilities, and needs, making their involvement and contribution to ECEC decisions crucial. While children are being included in participatory research more and more, their insights do not often impact decision-making (Macha et al., 2024). As such, there is a pressing need to move beyond tokenistic involvement and create structures that genuinely integrate children’s voices into the development, evaluation, and continuous improvement of ECEC environments.

Importance of including children’s voices in research

At its inception, photovoice was used to offer marginalised communities a voice (Wang, 1999). Today, however, it is a popular participatory research method used in a variety of disciplines, as it allows individual narrations based on one’s history and experiences. The use of photovoice in education research has been commonly used with university students, primary and high school students, and teachers. As for including young children in research, we found one study using photovoice methodologies with a sample of 4- to 6-year-olds (Butschi and Hedderich, 2021). In the Learning Together, Living Diversity Project, children were asked to photograph meaningful aspects of their lives, and explain their photos in subsequent group interviews.

Given that photovoice is driven by participants, the initial research questions can be adapted as needed. This flexibility allows for better responsiveness to the participants’ identified requirements and the exploration of emerging areas of interest (Patton, 2002). The adaptable nature of the research design makes it highly suitable for meeting the specific needs of the participants and the sociopolitical context of the community in which the project is based (Wang and Burris, 1997). When working with young children specifically, the integration of photography and verbal expression is anticipated to lead to profound self-introspection. Furthermore, it can be inferred that a child’s examination of their own pictures encourages storytelling and conversation, furthering the development of verbal skills (Flick, 2007).

Use of photovoice in early education research

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, specifically Article 12, advocates valuing children’s rationale and understanding (Milstein, 2010). If we acknowledge children’s rights and capability to participate in their social lives, it stands to reason they can be an important source of information about how to foster this development (Harcourt and Mazzoni, 2012). Moreover, it is imperative to understand that children’s experiences and knowledge are distinct and should not be interchangeable or assumed to be parallel with those of adults (Rodríguez-Carrillo et al., 2020). As highlighted above, adults seem to focus on ECEC aspects related to health, safety, and wellbeing, whereas children underscore other aspects.

Previous studies examining children’s perceptions and preferences of their ECEC setting demonstrates they are attuned to their environment. Through drawing, children as young as 2 years revealed the activities they enjoyed, while 3-year-old children not only expressed their current interests and enjoyments but also indicated additional activities or experiences they wished to participate in, which were not offered in their current ECEC setting (Barblett et al., 2023). Using child interviews, Sando and Sandseter (2022) reported that children enjoyed physical activity, pretend play with peers, and tasks that require a range of material, such as arts and crafts, and building and construction with blocks or natural elements. Similar results were reported by Ward (2018) in Australia after asking children to draw aspects of their daycare setting and telling researchers about their drawings. Preschoolers wanted play equipment that had “speed,” like slides or swings, and place for active and physical play. Children have also emphasised their preference for outdoor playgrounds as they allow for hiding, exploring, make-believe play, and challenges to overcome (Muela et al., 2019; Zamani, 2016). In line with this, studies conducted in Sweden and Spain reported that children want more outdoor, natural (sand, dirt, water, animals, huts) and synthetic play material (ropes, tyres, toys; Sando and Sandseter, 2022; Ward, 2018; Zamani, 2016). While literature in which children’s perspectives on ECEC settings exists, it is scarce, focussed largely on outdoor spaces, and largely conducted outside of North America. In addition, none of the above studies examined how children’s preferences for their ECEC settings vary based on the settings they are in.

Purpose of the study

The objective of this approach was to delve deeper into the children’s perspectives on their ECEC settings within a Canadian context. The goal was to understand their preferences and explore whether it is possible to translate their experiences into actionable knowledge through meaningful narratives. Additionally, the study sought to examine how children’s preferences for care may differ based on their care setting. Specifically, the research questions of this current qualitative study include:

What aspects of their care do children enjoy the most?

Do the themes of children’s preferences vary based on their care setting?

How do children’s care preferences map onto quality indicators from the AQI?

Based on the above literature, we expect children to specifically highlight material that allows them to engage in pretend and sensory play, space or equipment for physical activity, and outdoor components (Sando and Sandseter, 2022; Ward, 2018; Zamani, 2016). In other words, children might show a preference for engaging and interactive learning materials and environments that offer ample opportunities for play and exploration. Given that, to our knowledge, no research has examined research questions two and three, they are therefore exploratory in nature with no a priori hypotheses. Therefore, this study aims to offer new insights into children’s preferences for ECEC settings, and establish their voices in quality indicators, illustrating how children can be involved in QRIS.

Recruitment and participants

This study is part of a larger project whose goal is to develop a quality rating and improvement system in a province in Eastern Canada. The current study uses data collected during a stakeholder consultation phase of the larger project. Specifically, this study is based on photo elicitation interviews conducted with children to include their perspectives as government developed this QRIS for ECEC settings. Officials tasked with oversight of quality in the province were asked to identify a total of five programmes that reflect heterogeneity in terms of their settings and children’s socioeconomic and racial/ethnic backgrounds for inclusion in the current study. Five programmes were selected, all centres and all but one classroom that were asked to participate agreed.

Case 1 was centre-based, for-profit in a detached structure. Four children were interviewed indoors. This centre used a lot of natural and reusable materials. In the classroom from which children were invited to be interviewed for this study, there were minimal but intentional materials available, and a small area, intended for four individuals or less, referred to as the “Loft.” This area was accessed via a rock-climbing wall. This setting did not have the traditional designated areas (block area, water table) but did have a designated area for painting and one table set up with a basket of letters. Case 2 was centre-based and not-for-profit. It had multiple classrooms in the lower level of a building in the city. Four children were interviewed indoors in a classroom, with designated areas (sand box, two block areas, a reading area, painting area, pretend play area, and tables with activities set up). Case 3 was a larger centre-based, not-for-profit programme in a detached structure. Six children were interviewed indoors. This setting had traditional settings (pretend play area, and book area) with limited activities set out for children (one container of blocks was available on the table). Case 4 was also centre-based, not-for-profit and housed in a detached structure. Four children were interviewed indoors from this setting. Case 5 was a home childcare setting, and three children were interviewed when they were in the providers backyard. Table one provides a synthesis of the descriptive for each care setting (Table 1).

Table 1.

Description of interviews.

Case study #	Type of care	Interview setting	Profit	N children
1	Centre	Indoor	For profit	4
2	Centre	Indoor	Not for profit	4
3	Centre	Indoor	Not for profit	6
4	Centre	Indoor	Not for profit	4
5	Home	Outdoor	N/A	3

Children from the preschool classroom(s) in each centre were recruited for this study to increase the likelihood that children would have the skills to understand and complete the tasks involved in this study. All parents whose children were in the selected classrooms received consent forms and were informed that their (and their child’s) participation was voluntary and that they had the right to withdraw consent at any time. Children were selected in collaboration with the lead educator in the classroom. Specifically, the educator was made aware of the activity, and the questions children would be asked. The educator identified children for whom the activity would be developmentally appropriate. A total of 21 children were included in this study and ranged from 3 to 5 years old. All data were collected over the course of 1 week in the summer of 2023. Given the nature of the project, as a community engagement phase of programme evaluation, demographic data was not collected for any of the children. Research ethics approval was obtained from the University of Toronto research ethics board.

Data collection

A Photovoice activity was designed to elicit insights from children about their preferences in their classroom and to encourage them to express their perspectives through photography and subsequent discussions (Wang, 1999). The lead author, was a trained early childhood educator and a doctoral student in developmental psychology, implemented this Photovoice methodology specially tailored for young children. The activity began with children being asked about their favourite part of their classroom. This question was paraphrased, and examples were provided as needed to ensure children’s understanding (children were asked what they liked most about their classroom or what their favourite activity was in the classroom).

Each child was given a polaroid camera and instructed to identify and capture their favourite part of the classroom. The choice of a polaroid camera was intentional, offering an instant physical copy of the image for the children to hold and examine independently. Children were asked to take between 3 and 5 photos. To accommodate various preferences and ensure all children could participate in the photography process, three options were provided:

Independent Photography: Children could select and take the photograph entirely on their own.

Guided Photography: The lead author could hold the camera, allowing the child to push the button to take the photo.

Participation in the Photo: Children could choose to be in the photograph or be positioned beside the photo which required the first author to take the photo.

Once the children took their photos, they were asked to explain/discuss their chosen photos. The interviews were semi-structured, with every child receiving the same set of initial questions. The researcher individually showed each child each of the photo they took and ask why they chose that picture or what they liked about what was depicted in the photograph. While these questions formed the basis of the discussion, children were also encouraged to share anything else they wanted about their chosen subjects, fostering an open and expressive dialogue. The researcher noted children’s responses including verbatim quotes associated with each photograph.

Data analysis

The focus of the data analysis was on identifying larger themes around quality of ECEC from individual interviews with individual children. A phaenological approach was adopted to guide the analysis, as it emphasises understanding lived experiences from the perspective of those who have directly encountered a phenomenon (Hays and Singh, 2012). This approach was chosen to capture the voices of young children and explore the meanings they attach to their everyday experiences in ECEC settings.

First, interview transcripts/notes were carefully reviewed, allowing the lead author to become immersed in the rich narratives provided by the children. During this initial immersion phase, noteworthy segments of the interviews that related to aspects of care that the children enjoyed or expressed preferences for were highlighted. Following the initial review, a process of open coding was initiated. The lead author systematically identified recurring patterns, concepts, and keywords related to quality that were consistently mentioned by the children. This open coding informed the generation of a list of initial codes which were then organised and refined into broader thematic categories. The initial codes underwent an iterative process and were presented to policy makers, consultants, and other researcher for input into the categorisation. Revisions were made and the categories were presented repeatedly until no changes were proposed by reviewers. This process was implemented to accurately represent the children’s perspectives on quality in their care experiences.

To construct a comprehensive concept map delineating the primary quality indicators recognised by children identified themes and examples were aligned with established key quality indicators documented in the literature, a qualitative meta synthesis was performed (Finfgeld-Connett, 2018). Meta syntheses are a methodological approach that allow conceptual translation of qualitative results to generate new theory or extend existing ones (Finfgeld-Connett, 2018). In this study, the first two authors compiled a list of definitions and observations derived from the qualitative synthesis. Each author then identified overlaps among all the items of quality in the AQI, preschool version (City of Toronto, 2017). For the conceptual map, examples were carefully selected to encompass the best overlap and distinction between what children said and a measure of quality. The meta-synthesis was iterative, with all authors providing feedback as well as a thorough review process involving academics, educators, policy oversight authorities, and other specialised professionals in the field of early childhood education. For an example of how children’s responses were aligned with the AQI, see Appendix 1. In cases where children mentioned aspects of quality that were not captured in the AQI a new domain was created to incorporate the unique aspects of children’s perspectives (social, and emotional domain and the children’s well-being domain). Only the indoor quality indicators were mapped, as the outdoor version of the scale is not yet available.

Results

A total of 21 children were interviewed across five ECEC settings. Four programmes were centre based care settings and data were collected in a preschool classroom. One programme was a home childcare setting, where children were interviewed outdoors. Given the differences in these settings, children’s preferences in the home childcare will be presented separately.

Children’s preferences in indoor centre based ECEC settings

For the indoor programmes, children’s responses were reported based on whether they discussed (1) materials or activities; (2) descriptions of the uses of physical spaces in their ECEC settings; (3) interactions; and (4) other items.

Preferences for materials or activities in indoor centre-based ECEC settings

As depicted in Figure 1, in case 3, most children expressed a preference for specific materials as their favourite aspect of care. Notably, only one activity was cited by a child in this setting, highlighting the significance of materials in their experiences. In case 4, children did not mention activities as one of their preferred features of their care. Across cases 3 and 4, the materials that were mentioned included blocks, Lego, animals, puzzles, costumes, playdough, and scissors. Importantly, in both settings, children autonomously selected materials from shelves, as activities were not set up. In addition, children’s responses varied regarding whether they engaged in solitary or collaborative play. In case 4, two children revealed a preference for independent play with blocks and Lego, while another child, who preferred using scissors, did not contribute to shared artwork made in the classroom. Conversely, in case 3, there was a notable emphasis on peer engagement with materials within the room.

Figure 1.

Children’s preferences for materials or activities across settings.

In contrast, children in cases 1 and 2 did not mention specific materials at all (case 1) or they mentioned only one material (case 2) as their favoured aspect of care. Instead, their preferences cantered around intentionally arranged activities in the room. Examples included a large open-ended box, a spelling table with letters, designated painting areas, and a playdough table. Furthermore, children in these two settings engaged in a diverse array of activities that fostered collaboration. For instance, playdough-making involving the entire class, children then used the playdough to create various food items, which were subsequently shared among the children. Children in these contexts made comments the reflected more complexity in the context. For example, one child highlighted the social limitations of the setup, pointing out that having only one tray available hindered effective peer engagement.

Uses of physical spaces in indoor centre-based ECEC settings

Children in cases 1, 2, and 3 expressed their preferences for the setup of physical spaces within their rooms, as illustrated in Figure 2. In contrast, to children in case 4, who did not mention specific preferences for physical spaces at all. We use the term “physical spaces” to refer to designated areas within a room, each offering varying levels of flexibility for children to engage in activities. For instance, in case 1, the Loft represents an elevated space that can accommodate up to four children at a time. Here, children are free to bring any materials and participate in various activities. Those who mentioned the Loft often described it as a quieter space within the room, suitable for moments of rest. Similarly, case 2 features a quiet area designed specifically for calm activities, such as reading books or playing quietly with puppets.

Figure 2.

Children’s preferences of physical spaces in indoor settings.

Interestingly, children in case 1 identified non-traditional physical spaces that weren’t necessarily play areas. For example, the safe shelf served as a place for children to store unfinished work, allowing them to resume any interrupted activities later. A child who identified this as one of the things they liked best about their centre reported that the safe shelf helped them feel better when they were upset about not completing their work before their parents’ arrival. This same child valued a nook, a large ledge near a window, as a space for solitary play, and reporting using it as a tool to regulate their emotions. Another child emphasised the significance of the picture wall, considering it their favourite part of care, as it provided reminders of their family. In contrast, children in case 2 mentioned more conventional areas found in ECEC settings, such as the block area and sandbox. Children in this classroom also mentioned the activity table, where multiple individual trays with various activities are set up. The intentional set up of the activity table allowed children to engage in parallel play, while still playing independently or working on their specific activity.

Additional preferences in indoor centre-based ECEC settings

Additional preferences were provided by children in case 1 and 3 (Figure 3). First, children’s preferences for interactions were only mentioned by one child in case 1 and multiple children in case 3. Only one child across the entire sample of children mentioned an educator as one of the things they liked best about their provider. Similarly, only children in case 3 mentioned that their peers were what they liked best about their care. Finally, a child in case 3 also mentioned that their favourite part of ECEC is that they get to jump up and down and run around on the spot.

Figure 3.

Additional preferences in indoor settings.

Children’s preferences in outdoor home-based settings

For the outdoor programmes, children indicated that their preferred aspects of care were associated with the available materials and descriptions of designated physical spaces (Table 2). Specifically, two physical spaces were identified: a water table and a water sink. Children mentioned that they enjoyed the water table and sink because they provided opportunities for open-ended water play, including activities like splashing water, playing with toys, and observing the flow of water. Some of the other mentioned materials focussed on water play, such as the rain barrel and a bucket filled with water. Children also expressed an interest in more natural materials, like the apple tree and the rain barrel, which collects rainwater. The remaining materials that were mentioned were geared towards supporting physical and gross motor play, including items like a toy car, lawn mower, and basketball.

Table 2.

Children’s pictures and responses in an outdoor environment of a home childcare setting.

Theme	Picture description	Children’s responses
Physical spaces
Water table	A plastic water table with two tiers and movable water toys. Other toys are also in the basin of the water table.	• I love to play with water • I splash the water and I put toys in it • I play with other kids
Water sink	A homemade wood sink with a metal tub.	• I like that the water sink spreads water around • I can get water in the bucket and put the water in a sink • I like to watch the water go in and come out
Materials
Apple tree	A large tree that is in the middle of the backyard.	• I like to pick apples and eat them • They are better than the store because they are more red and they taste better
Rain barrel	A large grey barrel on a raised wooden structure. There is a knob at the bottom of the barrel to empty the contents. On the top is a hose.	• I like to turn it on, it is fun and I like that water comes out • We can put the water in the water table • We can use it to water plants • We water plants because we want them to grow nice and big
Bucket	A blue toy bucket with a cartoon character on the front. There is a rope attached to the bucket on both sides that is connected to a pully system on a tree.	• You can take it off and make a splash • You can pull it up and you can drop it • When there’s no big splash you can try again • And put more water in it
Blue car	A grey tray on a table. In the grey tray are several colourful plastic materials.	• I can sit in the car and I can push the car • Other kids can push me and I can push other kids
Lawn mower	Two identical toy lawn mowers with push handles and colourful buttons.	• I like the sound that they make “vroom vroom” • I like to push the lawn mower; I can mow the grass; and put gas in
Basketball	A yellow and orange basketball.	• You can roll, chase, kick and throw the ball • I can roll the ball up the slide and catch it when it comes down

Relating children’s preferences to quality indicators in ECEC

Alignment in measures of indoor quality

Children’s preferences were mapped onto the AQI (Appendix 1 for explicit examples of how children’s responses mapped onto the AQI domains). Children highlighted aspects of the physical environment, such as the importance of windows, environment that promotes peer interactions, as well as independent play (Figure 4). Daily Routines and Displays were also mentioned by children in this study, such as time for different activities (individual, quiet) and displays that reflect their families.

Figure 4.

Children’s preferences and quality indicators in indoor ECEC settings.

Children also identified features that support their own social and emotional development, independence, and overall well-being. In this area, children’s responses indirectly mapped onto items in the AQI such as “Educators display empathy.” For example, one child said that they loved their educator because they are helpful. In other cases, children reported items that helped their social and emotional development but were not in the AQI. For example, one child mentioned the presence of a “Safe Shelf” that allows the child’s work to be saved and respected. In another case, there was mention of a designated area where a child was able to work at when they needed space to calm down.

Lastly, children pointed out features in their ECEC settings related specific areas in the classroom and materials associated with those areas, including (1) Books, Language, and Literacy; (2) Dramatic/Pretend play; (3) Art; (4) Blocks and Construction; (5) Physical Play and Learning Experiences; and (6) Sensory, Science, and Nature. These domains emphasised the need for specific materials, activities, and seating arrangements, such as books, puzzles, dramatic play accessories, and art materials. Additionally, the domains underscored the importance of designated areas within ECEC settings to facilitate various types of play (spaces for pretend play, soft seating for reading). For example, within the Blocks and Construction domain, there was mention of adding materials, but not explicitly where children can determine and combine materials.

Discussion

The study explored children’s perspectives on their ECEC provide, in a Canadian context, to improve our understanding of children’s preferences and to link their experiences to actionable knowledge, such as applied quality assessments. We focussed on aspects that children like best about their care and how these preferences relate to quality indicators in the ECEC literature.

Understanding children’s preferences

This study found notable descriptive differences in what children identified as the things they liked most about their programme and the difference responses children provided based on their context. For example, there were noticeable differences in children’s descriptions of the aspects that they liked based on their care setting. In certain centres, children clearly communicated the constraints or possibilities of activities available to them. For example, in case 2 children largely described the areas of the room (reading area), the different materials that can be used (books and puppets) and activities they could engage in (reading or a puppet show) in each area. They also described the expectations of children when in these settings (a quieter space). In case 1, the loft was an example of an area that children described mentioning that any materials could be taken there, and they could play anything when in the loft. The expectation was that only four children would be in that space at a time. Furthermore, with these guidelines children were able to identify what activities were most suitable to take place in which space. For example, the Loft tended to be quieter than other areas and was good for resting.

Although children did not explicitly articulate the teaching strategies, their responses suggest that programme expectations had been communicated in a way that was both developmentally appropriate and responsive. Children’s ability to identify appropriate uses for different spaces, and to describe them in terms of enjoyment, freedom, and suitability, indicates that they had absorbed and accepted these expectations, likely due to educators’ effective and respectful communication. This highlights how the quality of children’s experiences is shaped not only by the physical environment but also by the ways in which guidance and rules are embedded within everyday interactions in a supportive and empowering manner. Moreover, this reflects the educator’s ability to scaffold children’s understanding, fostering autonomy and competence through guided participation, in line with Vygotsky’s ZPD. These interactions also occur within a broader context, aligning with Bronfenbrenner’s ecological framework, in which proximal processes (recurring, meaningful exchanges between child and educator) serve as a primary mechanism of development.

Regarding the availability of materials, research has shown that play and learning areas with specific materials aid children’s socioemotional and cognitive development (Gerdes et al., 2013). Yet, large variation was found in the intentionality and availability of activities and materials. In case 3 and 4, children’s preferences largely involved materials that were in bins/stored away. Some research suggests that storing materials in bins can facilitate discussion between children and educators (Nilsen, 2021), however, this relies on the beliefs and practices of educators, where some may not encourage children’s choices around their play. In environments where children’s choices are not actively encouraged or facilitated, these stored materials may remain underutilised, limiting opportunities for responsive interactions and autonomy-building. Activities that are intentionally set up based on children’s interests have been associated with increases in child engagement and autonomy (van Liempd et al., 2020) and may reduce the potential for material being misplaced or lost. This highlights the importance of intentional communication seen in the professionally identified higher quality programmes regarding the constraints or possibilities of activities within the classroom.

The amount of available material in children’s environments may have influenced their preferences regarding their care experiences. For example, one child in case 4 reported the only available puzzle to be their favourite because children have to share it and not fight over it. This highlights the importance of allowing children to express the reasoning behind their choices. Children in case 1 were able to complete the puzzle quickly, suggesting that they may benefit from access to more challenging puzzles. As children must be challenged for learning to occur, having a variety of materials may be beneficial for play and growth (Sando and Sandseter, 2022). On the other hand, it seems fewer materials can also promote prosocial behaviours and peer relations in certain contexts (Dauch et al., 2018). For instance, case 3, with limited materials, uniquely saw children favouring peer interactions, demonstrating a need to further explore the relationship between number of materials, sharing, and peer relationships.

The ways in which materials are implemented can also support different types of play. Different types of play have both been show be beneficial, notably the importance of individual solitary play (Coplan and Armer, 2007; Lloyd and Howe, 2003), however, facilitating activities that allow for different sized group activities is also important for social and emotional development (Pyle et al., 2020). While some of the centres had opportunities for both, it is also important that these activities can be adapted, so they can be sole or group activities depending on the preferences of the children who are engaged with them.

Research on ECEC quality has emphasised the importance of interaction (Burchinal et al., 2010; Ulferts et al., 2019). However, only one of the 21 children we interviewed chose to photograph their educator as one of their favourite parts of care. Interactions with educators were rarely mentioned by children in this study. It is possible that educators take a back seat as they facilitate children’s experiences through the intentional set up of activities, materials and physical spaces based on children’s interest. Children’s understanding of the room set up (as indicated by their ability to explain it to others) may be another indicator of educator guidance and intentionality. Thus, children’s responses regarding physical spaces may reflect educator’s involvement in supporting children’s engagement with each other and their environment.

Outdoors, children emphasised their appreciation of natural elements, water sources, and materials supporting physical and risky play. This can be extended to the exploration of scientific concepts and the importance of connecting with peers in outdoor environments.

Children’s perspectives and measures of quality indicators

While research has been conducted to understand children’s preferences for quality in indoor settings (Sando and Sandseter, 2022), it is often unclear how to integrate children’s preferences with quality improvement initiatives. We aligned children’s stated preferences and reasons behind their preferences with validated measures of indoor/outdoor quality. This qualitative “alignment” provides initial guidance for the potential to use children’s preferences to support quality. Overall, children’s preferences in both indoor and outdoor settings were aligned with domains on a validated quality measure, emphasising the significance of diverse play opportunities, supportive interactions, and intentional environmental arrangements. However, a deeper comparison between children’s views and existing measurement tools revealed notable gaps. For instance, children rarely mentioned the structured learning areas commonly emphasised on tools like the AQI, suggesting these spaces may feel constraining, be absent from their environment, or simply hold little value to them. In contrast, children frequently emphasised autonomy, such choosing activities, regulating emotions in designated spaces, and independently using materials across different areas. These elements are less emphasised in existing measurement tools, highlighting a potential area for refinement.

Children’s accounts also shed light on potential absences in their environments. A limited list of preferred materials or activities may reflect restricted access to diverse, stimulating experiences. Similarly, the relative absence of references to adult interactions is striking. Although adult-child engagement is central in developmental theory and quality frameworks, it was not particularly salient in children’s narratives. This raises important questions: Are there too few adults present? Are educators preoccupied with operational tasks? Or might some environments minimise adult engagement? These possibilities echo broader concerns about balancing structured programming with child-led exploration (Pyle and Danniels, 2017).

Overall, children’s perspectives highlight both what is present and what is missing in their care environments. Respect for autonomy through free movement, choice, and emotional self-regulation, emerged as a key marker of quality from their viewpoint, yet remains underrepresented in many existing tools. Future efforts should consider how validated measures can be refined to better capture children’s lived experiences, values, and unmet needs.

Limitations and future directions

This study has notable limitations, which are outlined below. First, there are developmental constraints associated with including young children in research. For instance, their limited communication abilities may limit their ability to express their thoughts or interests (Morison et al., 2000), and their cognitive abilities may hinder their ability to articulate complex concepts (Carter et al., 1996), such as quality in ECEC. To mitigate these challenges, the researcher who conducted the interviews had specialised training in early childhood development and utilised photovoice methodology. These approaches helped to ensure that the interview process was developmentally appropriate and could be modified to individual children while adhering to the interview protocol and reducing potential influences of social desirability, ultimately minimising response bias. However, it is important to note that children’s responses may have primarily reflected activities or materials they enjoyed, rather than a broader conception of programme quality. While this aligns with our aim of understanding children’s perspectives in a developmentally appropriate way—by asking what they thought was “good” about their classroom—it is possible that their interpretations were grounded more in preference and enjoyment than evaluative judgements of quality.

One limitation of this study is that children were interviewed at one point in time only regarding what children enjoyed about their centre. Interviewing children multiple times would test the stability and robustness of their responses over time. Therefore, a potential future direction for this study is to replicate the research and examine the consistency of these results across various time points and different contexts, enhancing the depth of insight into children’s preferences and experiences.

Lastly, as this phase was designed as a community engagement component of a broader programme evaluation, children’s demographic information was not collected. This limits the ability to examine how children’s perspectives may vary based on factors such as age, gender, cultural background, or other individual characteristics. Future research should include demographic information to better understand how diverse experiences shape children’s views and to ensure that programme adaptations are responsive to the needs of all children.

This was an exploratory study that used process qualitative data. While our methods were adequate given our goals the study has several limitations. One such limitation is a small sample size the precluded quantitative data analysis. We did not have child level information about language and other important characteristics and may influence children’s ability and motivation to respond to the demands of the task used in this study. An important future direction, particularly in light of Canada’s substantial federal investment in ECEC infrastructure, is to deepen our understanding of how children’s perspectives align with established quality assessment tools. Future studies should employ robust and validated measures, such as those used in QRIS (ECERS, AQI) alongside assessments that capture the experiences of the children who directly experience care. For example, asking children directly about specific quality domains—such as routines, interactions, or physical environment—can help determine which elements resonate with their lived experiences. This would allow researchers to identify areas of convergence and divergence between children’s voices and standardised assessments, ultimately strengthening the relevance and responsiveness of quality measurement tools in the Canadian context. Including regular check-ins with children about their ECEC experiences is a promising source of information about aspects of care that should be the target of quality improvement initiatives. In addition, it is imperative to conduct this research to encompass a broader spectrum of children, families and programmes. This study only included children from an urban context, thus understanding the preferences of children attending programmes in rural communities is a key area for future investigation. Finally, another important consideration of this work is that children are only able to discuss what they have exposure to, for example, there were no areas in any of the settings included in this study that were designated for music and therefore children were not able to state whether they preferred access to musical instruments.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that photo elicitation to gather information from children about their childcare experiences. Furthermore, we see how this information could be used to identify areas for improvement. Using qualitative methods, we found differences in the richness of what and how children chose to describe about their programme and how these related to expert opinions of the quality of the programmes included in this study. Together our findings provide a promising approach to ensuring that children’s voices are reflected in these important processes.

Footnotes

Appendix 1

Children’s qualitative responses aligned with quality measures.

Areas of quality	Examples of mapping children’s responses
Indoor environment (AQI domain)
• Child height windows in doors/walls to see out (Indoor Physical Environment)	• It’s important to have windows so that you can get sunlight.
• The play environment is designed to promote participation and peer interactions (Indoor Physical Environment)	• I play with my friends: we build houses together and tracks for cars
• The play environment is designed to promote independent use by children (Indoor Physical Environment)	• But we don’t play with anybody, we play by ourself because see there’s only one tray.
Books, language, and literacy (AQI domain)
• Books accessible for independent use (NA)	• One friend reads only by themselves
• Language and literacy toys/puzzles are not accessible (Language and Literacy)	• We have to share the puzzles, we can’t fight
• Staff read to children daily (Books)	*Absence of this description, even though there was mention of children reading to themselves, and peers reading to each other
• Soft seating is not accessible (Books)	• I like the couch it’s comfy, it is nice for reading book
Positive atmosphere and promoting social and emotional (AQI domain)
• The play environment is designed to promote participation and peer interactions (Indoor Physical Environment)	*Absence of this description as children only reported environments that are set up intentionally for only one child: But we don’t play with anybody, we play by ourself because see there’s only one tray
• Designated areas for children to regulate emotions (NA)	• When I feel mad and sad then I go there [The Nook] and feel calm
• Environments that encourage respect towards all children (NA)	• The shelf that you can save your work when your parents come
• Staff display empathy (Positive Atmosphere)	• I love her because she helps other people . . . She helps me with all kinds of things
Blocks and construction (AQI domains)
• Block and construction materials are not accessible (Blocks and Construction)	• I like the block area because I always do cool stuff in the block area
• Children can combine materials from other areas (NA)	• You can put bears and animals on there . . . We can build anything we want
• On-going project work is saved	• The safe shelf is where you can save what you’re working if your parent comes and you are still working on it, then you can save it
• The environment is arranged into learning areas that are open and accessible throughout the day	*Absence of this description but many of the children in higher quality classrooms mentioned spaces or “area”
Displays (AQI domains)
• Photographs of current children and/or families are displayed (Displays)	• I like that there are photos because I want to remember my sister and mommy and mommy • It’s nice for children because they can remember their families when they are here

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to the educators who facilitated and the children who participated in our data collection.

Author note

This investigation was conducted as part of updating of the Quality Matters (QM) initiative to improve quality in early childhood education and care in Nova Scotia, Canada. Samantha Burns are now affliated to University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.

ORCID iDs

Samantha Burns

Jesseca Perlman

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The project was funded by the Early Years Branch of the Nova Scotia Department of Education & Early Childhood Development.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Ainsworth

Bowlby

(1991) An ethological approach to personality development. American Psychologist 46(4): 333–341.

Barblett

Bobongie-Harris

Cartmel

, et al. (2023) ‘We’re not useless, we know stuff! Gathering children’s voices to inform policy. Australian Journal of Early Childhood 48(2): 134–147.

Bassok

Galdo

(2016) Inequality in preschool quality? Community-level disparities in access to high-quality learning environments. Early Education and Development 27(1): 128–144.

Bodrova

Leong

(2006) Vygotskian perspectives of teaching and learning early literacy. In: Dickinson

Neuman

(eds) Handbook of Early Literacy Research, vol. 2. Guilford, pp.243–256.

Bowlby

(1969) Attachment and Loss: Volume I: Attachment, vol. 79. The International Psycho-Analytical Library, pp.1–401.

Bowne

Magnuson

Schindler

, et al. (2017) A meta-analysis of class sizes and ratios in early childhood education programs: Are thresholds of quality associated with greater impacts on cognitive, achievement, and socioemotional outcomes? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 39(3): 407–428.

Bronfenbrenner

(1992) Ecological Systems Theory. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Bronfenbrenner

Morris

(2007) The bioecological model of human development. In: Damon

Lerner

(eds) Handbook of Child Psychology, 1st edn. Wiley.

Burchinal

(2018) Measuring early care and education quality. Child Development Perspectives 12(1): 3–9.

10.

Burchinal

Garber

Foster

, et al. (2021) Relating early care and education quality to preschool outcomes: The same or different models for different outcomes? Early Childhood Research Quarterly 55: 35–51.

11.

Burchinal

Vandergrift

Pianta

, et al. (2010) Threshold analysis of association between child care quality and child outcomes for low-income children in pre-kindergarten programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 25(2): 166–176.

12.

Butschi

Hedderich

(2021) How to involve young children in a photovoice project. Experiences and results. Qualitative Social Research 22(1): DOI: 10.17169/fqs-22.1.3457

13.

Cadima

Verschueren

Leal

, et al. (2016) Classroom interactions, dyadic teacher-child relationships, and self-regulation in socially disadvantaged young children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 44(1): 7–17.

14.

Carter

Bottoms

Levine

(1996) Linguistic and socioemotional influences on the accuracy of children’s reports. Law and Human Behavior 20(3): 335–358.

15.

City of Toronto (2017) Preschool early learning and care assessment for quality improvement. https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/966b-aqi_preschool.pdf

16.

Coplan

Armer

(2007) A “multitude” of solitude: A closer look at social withdrawal and non-social play in early childhood. Child Development Perspectives 1(1): 26–32.

17.

Crockett

Wasserman

Rudasill

, et al. (2018) Temperamental anger and effortful control, teacher-child conflict, and externalizing behavior across the elementary school years. Child Development 89: 2176–2195.

18.

Dahlberg

Moss

Pence

(2007) Beyond Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care: Languages of Evaluation. Routledge.

19.

Daniel

Madigan

Jenkins

(2016) Paternal and maternal warmth and the development of prosociality among preschoolers. Journal of Family Psychology 30(1): 114.

20.

Dauch

Imwalle

Ocasio

, et al. (2018) The influence of the number of toys in the environment on toddlers’ play. Infant Behavior and Development 50: 78–87.

21.

European Commission (2014) Proposal for a Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care: Report of the Working Group on Early Childhood Education and Care Under the Auspices of the European Commission. European Commission.

22.

Finfgeld-Connett

(2018) A Guide to Qualitative Meta-Synthesis. Routledge.

23.

Flick

(2007) Designing Qualitative Research. Sage Publications, Ltd.

24.

Gerdes

Durden

Manning

(2013) Materials and Environments that Promote Learning in the Primary Years. University of Nebraska–Lincoln Extension, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

25.

Harcourt

Mazzoni

(2012) Standpoints on quality: Listening to children in Verona, Italy. Australian Journal of Early Childhood 37(2): 19–26.

26.

Harms

Clifford

Cryer

(1998) Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale. Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

27.

Hays

Singh

(2012) Qualitative Inquiry in Clinical and Educational Settings. Guilford Press.

28.

Hong

SLS

Sabol

Burchinal

, et al. (2019) ECE quality indicators and child outcomes: Analyses of six large childcare studies. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 49: 202–217.

29.

Howe

Flanagan

Perlman

(2018) Early Childhood Education and care in Canada. In: Fleer

van Oers

(eds) International Handbook of Early Childhood Education. Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, pp. 721–743.

30.

Katz

(1993) Five Perspectives on Quality in Early Childhood Programmes. Perspectives from ERIC/EECE: A Monograph Series 1.

31.

Lloyd

Howe

(2003) Solitary play and convergent and divergent thinking skills in preschool children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 18(1): 22–41.

32.

Macha

Urban

Lonnemann

, et al. (2024) Children’s perspectives on quality in ECEC as a specific form of participation. International Journal of Early Years Education 32(1): 246–260.

33.

Mashburn

Pianta

Hamre

, et al. (2008) Measures of classroom quality in prekindergarten and children’s development of academic, language, and social skills. Child Development 79(3): 732–749.

34.

Melhuish

Ereky-Stevens

Petrogiannis

, et al. (2015) A review of research on the effects of early childhood education and care (ECEC) on child development. In Curriculum Quality Analysis and Impact Review of European Early Childhood Education and Care (CARE - European Early Childhood Education and Care Publications). CARE - European Early Childhood Education and Care.

35.

Milstein

(2010) Children as co-researchers in anthropological narratives in education. Ethnography & Education 5(1): 1–15.

36.

Morison

Moir

Kwansa

(2000) Interviewing children for the purposes of research in primary care. Primary Health Care Research & Development 1: 113–130.

37.

Moss

(2016) Why can’t we get beyond quality? Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 17(1): 8–15.

38.

Muela

Larrea

Miranda

, et al. (2019) Improving the quality of preschool outdoor environments: Getting children involved. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 27(3): 385–396.

39.

Nilsen

(2021) Pedagogical intentions or practical considerations when facilitating children’s play? Teachers’ beliefs about the availability of play materials in the indoor ECEC environment. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy 15(1): 1.

40.

Nislin

(2016) Nerve-Wracking or Rewarding. A Multidisciplinary Approach to Investigating Work-Related Well-Being, Stress Regulation and Quality of Pedagogical Work Among Early Childhood Professionals. Thesis University of Helsinki, Faculty of Behavioural Sciences Department of Teacher Education Research Report, p.386.

41.

OECD (2018) Engaging Young Children: Lessons Learned From Research About Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.

42.

OECD (2019) Providing Quality Early Childhood Education and Care: Results from the Starting Strong Survey 2018, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/301005d1-en.

43.

Patton

(2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3 edn, Sage.

44.

Perlman

Brunsek

Hepditch

, et al. (2017) Instrument development and validation of the infant and toddler assessment for quality improvement. Early Education and Development 28(1): 115–133.

45.

Perlman

Falenchuk

Burns

, et al. (2023) Instrument development and validation of the home child care version of the assessment for quality improvement. Early Education and Development 34: 1665–1681.

46.

Pyle

Danniels

(2017) A continuum of play-based learning: The role of the teacher in play-based pedagogy and the fear of hijacking play. Early Education and Development 28(3): 274–289.

47.

Pyle

Prioletta

, et al. (2020) Portrayals of play-based learning: Misalignments among public discourse, classroom realities, and research. American Journal of Play 13(1): 53–86.

48.

Rodríguez-Carrillo

Mérida-Serrano

González-Alfaya

(2020) ‘A teacher’s hug can make you feel better’: listening to US children’s voices on high-quality early childhood teaching. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 28(4): 504–518.

49.

Saleem

Burns

Davidson

, et al. (2022) What do parents want in terms of early childhood education and care? Early Education and Development 33(7): 1270–1288.

50.

Sando

Sandseter

EBH

(2022) Children’s perception and utilization of ECEC physical environments. Education Sciences 12(2): 88.

51.

Shonkoff

Radner

Foote

(2017) Expanding the evidence base to drive more productive early childhood investment. Lancet 389(10064): 14–16.

52.

Thümmler

Engel

Bartz

(2022) Strengthening emotional development and emotion regulation in childhood—As a key task in early childhood education. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19(7): 3978.

53.

Ulferts

Wolf

Anders

(2019) Impact of process quality in early childhood education and care on academic outcomes: Longitudinal meta-analysis. ChildDevelopment 90(5): 1474–1489.

54.

Vandell

Belsky

Burchinal

, et al. (2010) Do effects of early child care extend to age 15 years? Results from the NICHD study of early child care and youth development. Child Development 81(3): 737–756.

55.

van Liempd

Oudgenoeg–Paz

Leseman

PPM

(2020) Do spatial characteristics influence behavior and development in early childhood education and care? Journal of Environmental Psychology 67: 101385.

56.

Vermeer

van IJzendoorn

Cárcamo

, et al. (2016) Quality of child care using the environment rating scales: A meta-analysis of international studies. International Journal of Early Childhood 48(1): 33–60.

57.

von Suchodoletz

Lee

Henry

, et al. (2023) Early childhood education and care quality and associations with child outcomes: A meta-analysis. PLoS One 18(5): e0285985.

58.

Vygotsky

Cole

(1978) Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard university press.

59.

Wang

Burris

(1997) Photovoice: Concept, methodology, and use for participatory needs assessment. Health Education & Behavior 24(3): 369–387.

60.

Wang

(1999) Photovoice: A participatory action research strategy applied to women’s health. Journal of Women’s Health 8(2): 185–192.

61.

Ward

(2018) What’s in a dream? Natural elements, risk and loose parts in children’s dream playspace drawings. Australian Journal of Early Childhood 43(1): 34–42.

62.

Weiland

Yoshikawa

(2013) Impacts of a prekindergarten program on children’s mathematics, language, literacy, executive function, and emotional skills. Child Development 84(6): 2112–2130.

63.

Wiltz

Klein

(2001) “What do you do in child care?” Children’s perceptions of high and low quality classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 16(2): 209–236.

64.

Zamani

(2016) ‘the woods is a more free space for children to be creative; their imagination kind of sparks out there’: Exploring young children’s cognitive play opportunities in natural, manufactured and mixed outdoor preschool zones. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning 16(2): 172–189.