Children's perspective of participating in rough-and-tumble play

Abstract

The aim of this study was to explore children’s participation in rough-and-tumble play, from the children’s perspectives. The purpose was to increase the understanding of the play type so educators can better support children’s play without compromising their safety. Rough-and-tumble play is a form of risky play that involves excitement, physical challenge and uncertainty. Although it may resemble aggression, its purpose is not to cause injury or harm. It involves both physical and social risk, as children must manage possible bumps and falls while also navigating boundaries, consent, power relations, emotions, and changing group dynamics. Because of its noise, physicality, and visible risk, rough-and-tumble play is often restricted or prohibited in preschool settings, even though research indicates multiple learning opportunities. This study is grounded in childhood studies and social constructivist ideas about children’s play and learning. From this perspective, play is understood as a social activity in which children actively participate in creating meaning, negotiating rules, testing boundaries, and practicing the skills that shape their social reality. Children do not merely receive knowledge from adults; they develop understanding through participation, interaction, and reflection.

The research was conducted in a preschool setting with children aged five and six. The researcher observed children’s play in their everyday environment and recorded episodes of rough-and-tumble play on video. These recordings were used to support the conversations with the children. The conversations took place in small focus groups, usually with two to four children at a time. The children watched recordings of their own play and the play of other children and were invited to talk about what was happening and how they experienced their participation in the play. Children who participated in rough-and-tumble play were included, but also children who tended to avoid the play. The conversations were video-recorded to capture verbal and non-verbal expressions, transcribed, and analyzed thematically.

The findings show that most of the children enjoyed rough-and-tumble play, although their interest and participation varied. Some children engaged frequently and with enthusiasm, while others participated more cautiously or preferred to stay outside the play. Children’s willingness to join the play depended on the situation, the play partners, the rules, and how safe or enjoyable the play felt at that moment. A central finding was that the children were often able to set boundaries regarding how far the play could go. They used words such as “stop,” changes in tone of voice, facial expressions, and body language to signal when the play was no longer enjoyable. When these boundaries were respected, the play could continue. When they were crossed, the children’s experience changed: the activity ceased to be understood as play and became unpleasantness. This shows that the meaning of the activity depended not only on what the children were physically doing, but also on whether it was mutual, enjoyable, and acceptable. Consent was, therefore, a key factor in whether the activity remained play. Thus, the findings indicate that the children used various strategies to maintain their participation in rough-and-tumble play, but at times they also needed a break from the play. They often chose a designated resting place where they could step aside and rest. In this way, the children were better able to control when they made themselves available for play and when they did not.

The study contributes by making children’s perspectives on an important aspect of preschool life visible and by sharing their views with those who can influence preschool practice. The conversations with the children were not only a method of data collection but also learning opportunities that appeared to affect the quality of their rough-and-tumble play. Therefore, supporting rough-and-tumble play involves not only creating suitable play environments, observing, and intervening when needed, but also making time to reflect on the play with children before and after it takes place. In this way, much can be learned from the children who participated in the study and from the approaches used to listen to and engage with them. Although gender differences in children’s participation were not examined specifically, the findings suggest that boys participated more often than girls and engaged in more vigorous rough-and-tumble play, making this a valuable area for further research.