> Research presented in this section indicates that removing play from early childhood classrooms may actually undermine intended achievement-oriented outcomes.
That is absolutely not the same as having an overly safe or "soft" playgrounds.
You wanted research that showed how playgrounds could affect kids later in life. I tried to show that research suggest that indeed overly safe playgrounds can do that.
In my other comment on this article I mention a playground designer I knew, and this was one of the things he worked hard to change. He wanted playgrounds where kids could feel danger, so they could develop and get challenged, but that were still sufficiently safe.
A lot of playgrounds here were built to be as safe as possible, removing any feeling of danger and excitement in the process. This lead to less play and reduced development of motor and social skills.
> I tried to show that research suggest that indeed overly safe playgrounds can do that
But you didn't, your post is play vs no play. No one is arguing that no play has zero affect on children and their adulthood. All work and no play makes jack a dull boy.
Playgrounds for children are a relative new invention, especially for the unwashed masses. The notion that children require a dangerous feeling playground to become well rounded and mentally tough adults is silly.
Perhaps I failed to emphasize, but the last bit was important to my point. Studies have shown motor skills are important for kids and can affect later academic performance, and good playgrounds help kids develop motor skills.
> Playgrounds for children are a relative new invention, especially for the unwashed masses.
Indeed... yet somehow you don't think they play any role in how kids develop now compared to before they became common?
> good playgrounds help kids develop motor skills.
Once again, your link doesn't show that. Your link only claims physical play is important, it doesn't mention the type of playgrounds. Yes we all agree a sedentary lifestyle is bad for kids and adults.
If you can't provide a scientific source for your claim that the type ("safe" vs dangerous) of playgrounds matter then just say that.
Several programs emphasize the selection of certain types of motor play
equipment, based on previous observational studies of children’s outdoor play (Martin, 2000; McCall & Craft, 2004). These authors argue that equipment should be chosen to carry out specific activities that meet motor learning goals. Too often, they suggest, movement activities are planned around expensive pieces of playground equipment that pose few challenges, fail to
capture children’s interests, and do not promote the acquisition of important skills.
My link was not meant to be exhaustive, just to show there's research on this. Here's another source[1]:
Even though research on risky play and young children’s risk-taking is a relatively new research area, researchers have, during the last decades, been interested in the possible benefits of risky play to children’s development and learning. This research indicates that risky play can lead to increased physical activity, improved motor/physical competence (Brussoni et al. 2015; Fjørtoft 2000), higher ability to assess risks and handle risk situations in an appropriate way (Ball 2002; Boyesen 1997; Lavrysen et al. 2015) and positive psychological outcomes (Brussoni et al. 2015; Sandseter and Kennair 2011) and general health (Brussoni et al. 2015).
For some reason you keep replying to this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35222791 with links that claim physical exercise is important. In the future I suggest reading your links before posting them instead of assuming other people won't read them.
> Playgrounds for children are a relative new invention, especially for the unwashed masses. The notion that children require a dangerous feeling playground to become well rounded and mentally tough adults is silly.
Prior to playgrounds, children climbed trees and did all kinds of other edge-pushing play. Modern urban/suburban (and even in many cases rural) environments provide less opportunity for that.
At least here, most if not all of the trees are cut down on a property when a kindergarten or school is built. My friend tried hard to prevent this on the projects he was involved with.
There's also the issue with who enjoys climbing trees. I can't recall specifically about trees, but I do know girls prefer different activities to boys, another thing my acquaintance focused on when designing playgrounds.
Anyway, my point wasn't that kids need playgrounds to develop properly. Rather, given that kids are forced to spend large parts of their day in areas where the playground is the main source of physical challenges, the design of the playground has an impact on the kids.
That is absolutely not the same as having an overly safe or "soft" playgrounds.