The intra-active nature of Froebelian freedom with guidance: Early years educators’ insights into their outdoor learning pedagogies

Aims
This paper discusses the findings of a Participatory Action Research Study we conducted with early years educators and was funded by the Froebel Trust. The aims were two-fold: firstly, to explore educators’ understanding and opportunities to offer ‘freedom with guidance’ when children play outdoors; secondly, to support early childhood educators to be knowledgeable and nurturing through (a) careful observation and (b) professional reflection.

Conceptual framework
Froebel viewed play as children’s most natural way of engaging and connecting with the world and ‘the highest expression of human development in childhood, for it alone is the free expression of what is in a child’s soul’ (Froebel, 1887, p. 57). He claimed that child-initiated and child-directed play and creativity offered young children unique opportunities for learning, development and wellbeing (Bruce, 2011a, p.24).

This emphasis on ‘free expression’ and creative self-activity has often been misinterpreted as mere free play (BrostrÖm, 2017); and as suggesting that adults should step back, adopt a passive, onlooker role and allow children unrestrained freedom to learn autonomously (Bruce, 1991; McNair & Powell, 2020). In Froebelian theory (1887) however, adults have an active, auxiliary role in supporting children’s self-activity (McNair & Powell, 2020). ‘Free movement, free choice and self-activity are important, but they should be within a framework of guidance in which the role of the adult is crucial’ (Tovey 2017, p.3).
The relationship between children’s freedom and adults’ guidance has frequently been framed as dichotomous, mirroring wider tensions between play and learning, progressive and instrumental pedagogies (Broström, 2017; Smedley & Hoskins, 2020) and the longstanding divide between education and care in early years practice (Smedley & Hoskins, 2020; Steven, 2010). Educators often report uncertainty about how and when to get involved (Bubikova-Moan, et al, 2019), to interact without interfering (Fisher, 2016). They express concerns about and often resistance to increasing pressures for “schoolification” that narrow children’s experiences into measurable outcomes (Broström, 2017; Steven, 2010). These tensions are especially significant today as accountability frameworks intensify and early learning becomes increasingly outcome driven.

To address these dilemmas, we attempt to debank misleading binaries and reconceptualise Froebelian freedom with guidance as a complex network of several agents mutually constituting each other. Drawing on relational and posthuman perspectives, we propose that freedom with guidance emerges through multi directional intra-actions between children, educators, materials, the natural environment, parents, policy and institutional structures (Barad, 2005; Taguchi, 2010). These agents mutually shape the conditions of play, learning and pedagogical responsiveness.

Central to Froebelian practice is the knowledgeable, nurturing educator who engages in reflective practice, observes closely, and responds sensitively to extend children’s interests (Froebel Trust, 2026). Tovey (2017) highlights the importance of pedagogical sensitivity seen as the ability to adjust interactions to the child and context and to make informed judgements. Our research methodology fostered this sensitivity by supporting educators to engage with observation and professional reflection.

Methodology
This research was conducted in partnership with educators from three nurseries. Ten educators with different roles at their nursery were involved. Educators used wearable GO Pro cameras to gain deeper insight into their pedagogical practices while offering children freedom with guidance. The research followed three connected phases. First, drawing on Schön’s (1983) idea of reflection in action, practitioners engaged with children outdoors while wearing cameras that captured aspects of their interactions. The second phase involved reflection on action (Schön 1983), during which practitioners reviewed their recordings and reflected on their pedagogical strategies, interactions, and emerging challenges and opportunities. In the third phase, practitioners shared selected moments and reflections in focus groups, identifying aspects of outdoor practice for further inquiry. These phases were repeated across three cycles, each informing the next (Papadopoulou & Vincent, 2025).

Findings
Educators saw freedom with guidance as complex and multi-directional, involving several human and non-human agents in constant, dynamic entanglements. These included the children, educators, the natural environment and resources, parents, colleagues, managers, institutional features, regulations, children’s learning plans and the GoPro camera.

Participants spoke about the intra-actions between freedom and guidance, the two seen as interdependent and mutually constitutive. Guidance became possible when agents were given freedom and vice versa. Instances of these included children giving adults guidance about their interests and needs or giving adults the freedom to guide their play. The outdoors offered guidance about possibilities for action and the freedom to explore. Policy, institutional practices and regulations created the parameters within which freedom was possible.

The GoPro camera became a significant material agent, intra-acting with educators to generate reflexive insights and guide future pedagogical possibilities.

 
References
Barad, K. (2005) Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham, N.C./London: Duke University Press.
Broström, S. (2017) 'A dynamic learning concept in early years' education: a possible way to prevent schoolification', International Journal of Early Childhood, 25(1), 3–15. doi: 10.1080/09669760.2016.1270196.
Bruce, T. (2011a) Learning Through Play: For babies, toddlers and young children. London: Hodder Education.
Bruce, T. (1991) Time to Play in Early Childhood Education. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Bubikova-Moan, J., Næss Hjetland, H., & Wollscheid, S. (2019) ECE teachers’ views on play-based learning: a systematic review, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 27(6), 776–800. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2019.1678717
Fisher, J. (2016) Interacting or interfering? Improving interactions in the early years. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Froebel, F. (1887) The Education of Man. Translated by W. N. Hailmann. New York: D. Appleton & Company.
Froebel Trust (2026) Froebelian Principles. Accessed 27 January 2026 https://www.froebel.org.uk/about-us/froebelian-principles
McNair, L.J. and Powell, S. (2020) 'Friedrich Froebel: a path least trodden', Early Child Development and Care, 190(15-16), 1175-1185. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2020.1803299.
Papadopoulou, M., & Vincent, K. (2025). Making the invisible visible: the pedagogical affordances of outdoor learning in a nursery and a primary school. Education 3-13, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2025.2469724
Schön, D.A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. London: Temple Smith.
Smedley, S., & Hoskins, K. (2020) Finding a place for Froebel’s theories: early years practitioners’ understanding and enactment of learning through play. Early Child Development and Care, 190(8), 1202–1214. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2018.1525706
Stephen, C. (2010) Pedagogy: the silent partner in early years learning. Early Years, 30(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575140903402881
Lenz Taguchi, H. (2010) Going Beyond the Theory/Practice Divide in Early Childhood Education: introducing an intra-active pedagogy. New York: Routledge.
Tovey, H. (2017) Bringing the Froebel Approach to your Early Years Practice. 2nd edn. London: Routledge.