A socio-ecological examination of the primary school playground: Primary school pupil and staff perceived barriers and facilitators to a physically active playground during break and lunch-times

Using Brofenbrenner’s socio-ecological model as a conceptual framework, the objective of this study was to determine playground users (primary school staff and pupils) perceptions of the barriers and facilitators to a physically active school playground at an intra-personal (individual), inter-personal (social), environmental and policy level. Results from a series of qualitative interactions with children (n = 65) from years five and six (9 to 11 years old), and structured interviews with adult teachers (n = 11) revealed key differences in the child and adult perceptions of the playground and the purpose of break-times. A number of inter-related environmental boundaries and school policies were identified as restrictive to children’s explorations and activity levels during ‘free play’ periods, which centred on resource availability, accessibility and health and safety. Further, traditional playground hierarchies act to promote and prevent physical activity engagement for different groups (e.g. gender and age). Finally, differences between the adult and child perception of the primary school playground were observed. Playground physical activity, during break-times appears to be affected by a number of variables at each level of the socio-ecological model. This study provides an opportunity for primary schools to reflect on primary school playground strategies and practices that are implemented at each level of the socio-ecological model to encourage a more effective use of the playground during school break-times.

sure it is accurate.

Unfunded studies
Enter: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. Yes -all data are fully available without restriction

Abstract 26
Using the socio-ecological model as a conceptual framework, the objective of this study was 27 to determine playground users (primary school staff and pupils) perceptions of the barriers 28 and facilitators to a physically active school playground. Results from a series of qualitative 29 interactions with children (9 to 11 years old) and structured interviews with adult teachers 30 revealed key differences in the child and adult perceptions of the playground and the purpose 31 of break-times. A number of inter-related environmental boundaries and school policies were 32 identified as restrictive to children's explorations and activity levels during 'free play' periods, 33 which centred on resource availability, accessibility and health and safety. Further, traditional 34 playground hierarchies act to promote and prevent physical activity engagement for different 35 groups (e.g. gender and age). This study provides an opportunity for primary schools to reflect 36 on primary school playground strategies and practices that are implemented at each level of 37 the socio-ecological model to encourage a more effective use of the playground during school 38 break-times.

Introduction 50
High rates of physical inactivity have been reported among children of primary school age in 51 the UK [1] and worldwide [2,3]. Physical activity in this age group is important for a number 52 reasons; such as improved cardio-metabolic health [4,5], bone health [6], and mental health 53 [7]. However, physical activity is a complex and multi-dimensional behaviour determined by 54 numerous biological, psychological, sociocultural and environmental factors [8][9][10][11][12]. 55 Ecological models of health (and physical activity) are one such method in considering a wide 56 range of determinants. The socio-ecological model, originally developed by Brofenbrenner 57 [13] and adapted by Sallis Bauman & Pratt [14], focusses attention on the key individual, 58 interpersonal, environmental and policy agencies that have an active role in health and 59 physical activity promotion. 60 There is evidence to suggest interventions will fail to make long term, sustainable changes to 61 daily moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) if they fail to adequately consider the 62 interactive characteristics between individuals and their environment at the intra-personal 63 (individual), inter-personal (social), environmental and organisational/policy level [15,16]. For 64 example, implementing changes at an individual level by encouraging engagement in 65 physically active pursuits during break-times will only work if appropriate environmental and 66 policy level changes are also implemented at the school. However, many childhood physical 67 activity interventions do not consider the multi-level influences on children's behaviour during 68 the intervention [17]. 69 Despite the inconsistency associated with the design of physical activity interventions, it is 70 universally accepted that interventions within the school environment are important, and for 71 good reason [18]. Children between 5 and 11 years of age can spend up to 30 hours per week 72 within the school environment [19] making it an ideal setting to promote physical activity. 73 Within a school day, school break-times are reported to be the most favourable periods of the 74 day for children [20], providing periods of time for children to "catch up" with their friends [21] 75 In the UK, the Department for Education (DfE) provides eligible primary schools with funding 102 from the Primary Physical Education and Sports Premium (PPESP) with the aim of enhancing 103 the health and well-being of pupils. There is a growing amount of support for the use of the 104 PPESP to enhance children's play and activity by making changes to the outdoor environment 105 [28,29]. Furthermore, one of the five key indicators aligned to the aim to support the 106 engagement of all pupils in regular physical activity is 'encouraging active play during break-107 times and lunchtimes ' [29]. Whilst the funding model and its key aims appear laudable and 108 transparent, the extent to which the experiences and viewpoints of children are considered 109 when designing suitable and sustainable outdoor play spaces remains unclear. 110 According to Jones [30], many fail to consider the 'otherness' of childhood when trying to 111 understand children's engagement with activities during break and lunch-times, and in the 112 design and development of a playground environment children will enjoy. Jones argues that 113 when adults revisit their own childhood experiences they are 'filtered' by the experiences they 114 have had since their adult becoming [30]. This is not to say these experiences are wholly 115 irrelevant, but they cannot be straightforwardly applied or transferred to children lives today. Notwithstanding, the activities and spaces available to children during school break-time are 124 often designed, chosen, and enforced by adults, leading to the creation of play spaces using 125 the method of "seeing through the child's eyes" [30]. Although there seems to be a genuine 126 attempt from the adult population in the primary school environment to promulgate activities 127 that might be attractive to children [27] there must be some acknowledgement of the 128 'unbridgeability ' [30] between adult and child experiences. 129 Therefore, the aim of this study is to develop a deeper understanding of user's (children and

Methods 145
The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) checklist [36] was 146 used to provide transparency and to ensure accurate reporting of the empirical data [37]. The 147 methods that follow are a brief overview of the procedures used in this study. 148

Recruitment 149
Following ethical approval to conduct structured interviews with adults, and focus group North East of England were contacted via email. Schools were selected using the list of local 155 schools (www.gov.uk) and were initially chosen for convenience of location and their urban 156 setting. Schools were eligible to take part if they had a minimum of one year five and one year 157 six class. Schools which matched this criteria were then contacted with details of the study. 158 Four schools returned expressions of interest and were contacted further to discuss the project 159 requirements and complete the school management consent forms. Head teachers from three 160 schools (Table 1) returned managerial consent. Study information and the relevant consent 161 forms were provided for eligible staff, parents of eligible pupils and pupils themselves (assent 162 forms). Staff consent and pupil assent were completed immediately prior to data collection. 163

Participants 165
School staff that were in an active role within the playground or in physical activity promotion 166 within the school (PE specialist, health leads, heads and assistant heads, school classroom 167 teachers, playground supervisors and school sports coaches) and children from years five and 168 six (9 to 11 years old) were eligible to take part. 169 Children took part on focus group activities which were conducted over the course of one 170 school term. Staff were given the option of participating in a face to face structured interview 171 or completing the interview asynchronously using an open-ended questionnaire format. Table  172 2 reports the number of staff and children recruited in the study. 173

Data collection 176
Data collection activities were conducted by members of the research team (MG and AI) that 177 had previous training and experience of working with primary school aged children in a both a 178 prescriptive (teaching and coaching) and facilitative role (research activity). 179

Data collection -Child 180
Focus groups, inclusive of a number of data collection activities has been used as an effective All focus group discussions were digitally recorded using audio devices. Noticeable changes 198 in body language or persistently repeated opinions were recorded in the facilitator notes to aid 199 in transcription, to support the outputs from the variety of focus group activities and to ensure 200 accuracy of the adult perception (i.e., the research team) of the child's experience/response. 201 Children were told the devices "are here to record the discussions we have today about your 202 playground. They will only be used by the research team and the recordings will not be shared 203 Children were then asked to write the skills they perceived as necessary to use each 225 playground area on sticky paper notes and place them on the map over the corresponding 226 playground area. On completion of this task, children then removed the sticky notes and 227 placed them in a line from the most to least important, in terms of being able to use the 228 playground effectively (Figure 2). The outputs from this task were used to identify any specific 229 skills that children perceived as necessary to be able to be physically active in each of their 230 previously identified playground zones. The final focus group activity was designed to allow children complete anonymity and remove 249 themselves entirely from the confinement of restrictive adultist opinion. Children were given 250 one piece of A5 paper and asked to "write one wish for the playground that would make it 251 better and help you be more active during break-time". The children were then asked to fold 252 their piece of paper in to a small square and post it into 'the secret box'. Previous work has 253 suggested a 'secret box' activity removes the fear children have of sharing their thoughts and 254 opinions [40]. 255 The facilitator's role in these tasks was to look for clarity in the responses and activity outputs, 256 to ensure the children had considered each of the task requirements, and stimulate further 257 discussion amongst the group. The discussions were used to get more accurate 258 interpretations of the outputs during audio transcription. 259

Data collection -Staff 260
Staff were first offered a one-to-one interview to discuss the a priori themes of the project; 261 barriers and facilitators to a physically active playground during school break-time. However, 262 gatekeepers at each of the schools expressed a concern from teachers on allocating time from 263 their day to meet with the researcher. Furthermore, there was a concern that senior leaders 264 at the school would be able to identify who had and hadn't taken part in the project. For this 265 reason, staff were given the option of interview or questionnaire. All participating staff chose 266 to complete the questionnaire in their own time and were asked to be as detailed as possible 267 in their responses on the questionnaire, using additional pages if needed. Staff were offered 268 the option of providing contact details if they were happy to be contacted further for any 269 responses requiring clarification. No member of staff provided these details. 270

Thematic data handling and analysis 271
Qualitative data for both focus groups and asynchronous interviews were analysed using the 272 process of thematic data analysis as described by Braun and Clarke [48]. This 6 stage 273 approach allows a more detailed contextual examination of the pre-identified ideas, 274 assumptions, and ideologies underlying these a priori themes without sacrificing its flexibility 275 to provide "a rich and detailed, yet complex account of the data" [48; pg.5] that is both 276 theoretically and methodologically sound; and can be widely used across a range of 277 epistemologies and research questions [49]. 278

Child Focus Groups 279
The first task for data analysis involved two researchers reading through every focus group 280 activity the children had completed to begin to identify recurring themes across each of the 281 groups (stage 1 -familiarisation with the data). Each activity was then reviewed again, and 282 initial features of the data coded in a systematic fashion to collate data relevant to each code 283 (stage 2generation of initial codes). Activities were reviewed a third time whilst listening to 284 the associated audio recording from the matched focus group to ensure the children's written 285 points had been interpreted accurately. Audio recordings were not transcribed "verbatim" but 286

Staff Asynchronous Interview Forms 303
Completed staff forms were read in full prior to analysis to identify commonality across all 304 responses and to become familiar with the data. Data was then coded and handled following 305 the same processes described above. Responses from the child focus groups and staff 306 responses that did not recur frequently but that had particular resonance due to the language 307 used were grouped under the same code ('valuable insight'). 308

Outcomes 309
A total of 65 children were recruited and provided parental consent and initial assent. At the 310 time of data collection four children were absent and three withdrew assent prior to the start 311 of the focus groups. The remaining 58 children (52% female) participated in focus group 312

activities. 313
Eleven members of staff from across the three schools returned consent to take part in the 314 study. Figure 4 and Figure 5 display the final thematic map for children and staff, respectively. 315 The thematic map is inclusive of the a priori themes (barriers and facilitators) and the deductive 316 themes from each of the data collection activities (playground map, essential skills, supervisor 317 drawings and discussions) and their association to each of the socio-ecological model 318 components. The secret box activity was also analysed in respect to the socio-ecological 319 model but did not contribute the themes identified in the thematic map. A full list of the secret box responses can be seen in Table 3. Responses are separated for 331 children and staff and divided into small and large wishes dependent on the resources 332 (physical and monetary) needed or the surface area required [16]. Further, the wishes are 333 separated into categories based on their desired outcomes (i.e., physical environment, 334 individual/interpersonal or policy). Children's wishes focussed on play, adventure, and fun. 335 Wishes were predominantly concentrated on the provision of new equipment and longer 336 break-times. Staff wishes for the school playground focussed on a wider development of 337 playground structure, policy changes, management and support. 338

. Discussion of research findings 341
The following is a further presentation of focus group outcomes, discussed in light of theory 342 and research on the individual, interpersonal, environmental and policy influences (barriers 343 and facilitators) on children's physical activity engagement during school break and lunch-344 times and is subdivided according to the components of the socio-ecological model. 345

Individual and interpersonal factors (children) 346
From the perspective of the children, individual level facilitators of physical activity focussed 347 predominantly on the intrinsic desires to have fun ("Because my friends push me on the low 348 swings, it's fun"; "it is fun to try new things"; "me and my friends play games here…the maze 349 game because it is fun"; "we play tag, it's very fun"), for the enjoyment of activities ("I like it 350 because I get to play football"; "I like playing there because I can play leapfrog"; "I like it cause 351 we can play tennis and get tennis rackets") and the belief they will do well in a specific activity 352 (perceived competence) ("…football is a good sport for me"; "…because I likely do well"). 353 Thus, congruent with the work of Snow et al. [35] who conducted focus groups on 8 to 10 year 354 old girls, children in this study cited fun, physical competence and mastery of skills as a major 355 influence on the engagement in play. In terms of physical competence, Barbour [51] suggested 356 that the type of activities children take part in are a result of similarities in movement ability 357 and movement skill competency, with children of low physical competence reluctant to 358 approach activities requiring a higher level of ability. Evidence suggests that when 359 fundamental movement skills are taught to younger children (4 to 9 year olds), increases in 360 confidence in their ability results in participation in physical activity during other parts of the 361 day [52]. As children age they are more aware of their ability, or lack thereof, and as a result 362 less likely to participate in activities they desire for fear of embarrassment [52,53]. The desire 363 for actual physical competence in Snow et al. [35] and the engagement (or disengagement) 364 in specific activities due to perceptions of physical competence in this study are slightly 365 difference concepts. However, the aspirations for and perceptions of competency were driven 366 by the same yearning for a sense of social belonging. 367 Children in this study identified that they took part in activities that they "would likely do well 368 at" but also participated in activities and occupied playground areas for social reasons, 369 irrespective of any assessment of physical competence and in the absence of a specified 370 activity ("this is where my friends are"; "because most of my friends play here"; "because my 371 friends are here…"). Parrish et al. [52] focus group findings from children aged 9 to 11 372 highlighted that children were more likely to take part in games their friends were playing, even 373 if they had a desire to play something else. One group of children in this study, when 374 discussing the activities on their playground highlighted: The desire for children to engage in social games, requiring more than two people could be 390 perceived as a method employed by the children in this study at increasing the 'quality' of their 391 friendships 392 "because we get to run around and play bulldogs", "we sometime get to play 393 football tennis", "we play football and sometimes tig", "we play hide and seek". 394 However, the opportunity for social play was also often linked to less desirable playground 395 experiences ("there are too many footballs", "there are a lot of fights and it stops playing", "play 396 is too rough") and traditional playground hierarchies ("the boys take the ball court most of the of the effect of these practices are likely school dependent, due to the varied 408 management/supervision of the playground between schools, football and fighting is an 409 activity that many boys continue to use to solidify their masculinity [56]. 410 Some of the girls in this study identified hegemonic masculinities that are displayed during 411 break-times. As an example, the following conversation between three participants is worth 412 citing at length. On this occasion we use pseudonyms to enable the reader to distinguish 413 between participants.

Individual and interpersonal factors (adult supervisors) 441
Similar individual level facilitators were identified from staff outputs with play, exploration and 442 enjoyment identified as key to children's participation in activities. 443 "Children like to climb on the rocks and tyres"; "children often look to play their own 444 games…"; "children like freedom and unstructured play"; "children enjoy playing 445 football"; "children enjoy the ball court and playing football" 446 Although adults (staff) in this study seem to understand the individual value of play, they 447 identified more frequently with the extrinsic values of peer relationships and social 448 development: 449 "teamwork and collaboration"; "ability to listen to others"; "…take turns and play 450 fair", "need to understand the rules"; "social is important to feel comfortable playing 451 in front of others" 452 Previous research exploring children's geographies has highlighted that the intrinsic value of 453 play is not acknowledged by teachers and policy makers [35] and that opportunities for play, 454 particularly outdoor play is decreasing with increased emphasis on classroom based, adult 455 organised activities [59,60]. Furthermore, adults colonise children's places and create safe 456 and easy to monitor play spaces which often means the naturally sporadic and exploratory 457 play behaviours of children [33,61] are perceived as disruptive and undesirable, and are 458 consequently dealt with 'accordingly' ("children need to be guided on how to play safely", 459 "children need to be aware they will be punished (equipment removed) for bad behaviour"). 460 The staff opinions on the 'correct' use of the playground could be interpreted from a dualist 461 perspective, whereby there is either a right or wrong way of 'playing'. Although one cannot 462 argue that children will benefit from "teamwork and collaboration" and an "ability to listen to 463 others" throughout their child, adolescent and indeed adult becoming; the adult regulation and 464 enforcement of these qualities goes against the nurturing concept of physical literacy [62]. 465 Children develop a natural, more flexible interaction with the environments that surround them 466 and can be very creative and innovative when adapting architectural features of the 467 playground such as bins, bollards, fencing, walls etc. [33]. Objects in the environment are not 468 inanimate features to which we ascribe an abstract concept but are meaningful in a sense that 469 they 'engage' with us, indicating how we can interact effectively with them [63]. Children in this 470 study identified areas of the playground that to the researcher looked unusable. However, 471 children circled these areas for the inanimate objects (bollards, rocks) that existed there (for 472 example, "I like playing here cause I can play leapfrog"). However, these behaviours are often 473 stifled by staff on the playground perceiving their use as inappropriate and unsafe ("children 474

Environment and policy level 487
As previously mentioned, the large open spaces identified in this study were predominantly 488 grass fields and expansive concrete areas. Children highlighted these areas as positive for 489 their promotion of team games, playing with friends and their soft surfaces. However, the 490 children also highlighted that these areas often flood in wet weather leading to prohibited 491 access due to adverse conditions. The data from the children and staff suggest that this is an 492 issue that needs addressing at policy level with adequate investment in facilities for all 493 weathers: 494 Children 495 "sometimes not allowed here when it is wet or muddy", "can't use it when it is full 496 of snow", "not allowed in when it is snowing", "we are not allowed on the grass 497 when it is wet", "we are not allowed on when it is icy or snowy cause we might fall 498 over and get hurt", "when it rains there are puddles for weeks" 499 Staff 500 "space is a problem when the grass is wet, children are confined to the hard area 501 which prevents children playing"; "bad weather prevents physical activity at break 502 times"; "not being able to use the field when it is wet has a negative impact as 503 children are not allowed footballs on these days", "rock area is dangerous when it 504 is wet" 505 As one child said "if it is raining, why not put a roof on the MUGA". Similar findings from 506 Australian children, also recognised the need for 'weather protection ' [65], demonstrating that 507 despite very different weather conditions, the play restrictions being enforced on children in 508 primary school playgrounds is an issue experienced internationally. 509 The appearance of staff members on the playground acting like shepherds tending their 510 disobedient flock may be driven more by the inadequate investment at a policy level in the 511 children's physical, social and emotional development during this important period in a child's 512 day [59]. This was further highlighted by a number of staff members who identified a lack of 513 staff resources prevented them from engaging in anything other than crowd control ("there is 514 lots of activity and a lot to monitor for just two members of staff", "not enough staff being able 515 to supervise and keep children safe", "staff are limited, we already have some staff on the 516 playground but not all the time and they can't cover everywhere"; staff are occupied dealing 517 with behaviour so seldom able to engage with activities"). This is in contrast to self-report 518 findings from national (UK) school surveys from 1995 to 2017 which identified that there are 519 now more adults supervising than there has been in the previous twenty-two years [59]. 520 Although these numbers are likely school dependent, the actions of the supervisors may be 521 more important than the numbers available [27]. Children highlighted the potential for teachers 522 to act as facilitators ("some teachers won't come out but 'Miss D' played like Mr Fox or 523 something with us before but not many (teacher) do") but are too often restricted by the number 524 of staff available ("sometimes there is only one member of staff on duty so we have to stay 525 where the teacher can see them so they are safe and don't get hurt"; "….but I do get it cause 526 there are only like two dinner nannies"; "that's the part we are not allowed down, well we are 527

sometimes but not all days when we don't have teachers, because when it (the bank) goes 528 down the teachers can't see us"). 529
Children at participating schools had a mix of teachers, teaching assistants, 'dinner nannies' 530 and 'playground friends' that helped monitor the playground during break-times. Children 531 highlighted they would like their teachers to be more involved during break-time but highlighted 532 they wanted teachers based on 'sportiness' ("…because they are good at sport", "teachers 533 are not that sporty", "Mr T and Mr L are the sportiest but there are no more sporty ones", "our 534 teachers are not that sporty, there is only like three and they are not that sporty"). 535 Although in the current study we were unable to distinguish between staff positions within the 536 school (head teacher, teacher, teaching assistant etc.) due to the anonymous nature of the 537 staff responses; previous research has found that head teachers from different schools have 538 very different ideas about the value and role of break-time [20] and therefore, the behaviours, 539 actions and opinions of the staff (from staff and child perspectives) in the current study may 540 be a result of (or lack of) the agenda at senior management levels. 541 Overall, staff perceived their role as a combination of encouraging a supportive and safe 542 environment ("supervisors should be at their station, organising resources and facilitating", 543 "adult presence ensures that children feel safe and are used for advice and support if needed") 544 and promoting engagement in physical activity ("my role is to keep children safe and happy 545 and to encourage some children to be active"). However, the perception from children was 546 that the role of playground staff is for safety and the enforcement of rules and boundaries 547 ("sometimes we do use here for bulldogs, but the younger ones are doing it now so we are 548 not allowed", "if we go on there the teachers can't see us and we'll get dirty", "dinner nannies 549 say we can only play with your own year group…it's so annoying…", "they look after us, stop 550 fighting and help people who are hurt"). 551 The active interest of the adult members of staff in the school were explored during the 552 playground supervisor and playground activities tasks. When asked about the staff who were 553 present on their playgrounds during break and lunch-times, this is just a sample of the words 554 the children used to describe them: 555 Safe; loving; try to keep us safe from bully 's; caring; angry; helping; laughable; 556 sharing; bossy; hardworking; respectful; kind; mad; safety; hate. 557 Although mostly positive, the variety of qualities cited by the children gives an idea of the 558 variety of adult personas that occupy children's playgrounds during break-times. It is therefore 559 important that these staff members understand the importance of their behaviours and the 560 positive influence they can have on the social and physical activity behaviours of the children 561 who occupy the playground space. 562 From the variety of staff and child accounts provided in this study and in previous studies 563 [16,33] on the level and role of staff interaction during break-times it seems that, beyond child 564 safety, there is no standardised, universally accepted requirement for behaviour of playground 565 staff in the primary school setting. This allows for a large variation in the day to day 566 management of the school playground, dependent largely upon the member of staff who 567 happens to be 'on duty' that day (mood, personality, personal agenda, etc.). 568 All the schools in this study were in receipt of the PPESP. Only one school in this study 569 mentioned break-times as part of their planning, with structured lunchtimes with a sports 570 coach, lunch supervisors and pupil leaders to target inactive children during break-time 571 reported. Whilst this one school's acknowledgement of break-times as a period of time that 572 would benefit from investment, the plans and ideas mentioned previously were alongside the 573 provision for the daily mile, access to new sports and activities and a lunchtime wake up dance 574 activityall of which was allocated a combined £750 from the £19,520 PPESP allocated to 575 this school. 576 Whilst the physical activity levels of children during break-times is much more complex [66] 577 the lack of valuable and sustainable investment in playground provision is worrying and in 578 contrast to the recommendations provided by the DfE [29]. A continuation in the 579 marginalisation of break-times for more curricular focussed adult led activities (i.e., PE); 580 alongside a reduction in time provided for break-times [20] and inadequate investment in the 581 primary school playground provision, will lead to further reductions in exploratory play and 582 reduced opportunity to develop physical literacy. Furthermore, without recognition of the 583 importance of break-times in children's physical, social and emotional development and the 584 provision of a sustainable intervention, the current playground behaviours will continue to re-585 enforce the adult-child power distribution [30]. 586

Summary and conclusion 587
This study aimed to use the socio-ecological model to explore school children's and school 588 staff perception of the school playground and identify reasons for enjoyment, engagement and 589 dissociation with specific playground areas. There have been limited studies exploring the 590 socio-ecological model components within a school context [16] and to our knowledge this is 591 the first use of this framework to qualitatively explore the complex contexts presented to UK 592 primary school children during their 'free play' time. 593 This qualitative evaluation has identified differences between the adult and child perception of 594 the primary school playground. These differences affirm the need to actively include children 595 This does not go unnoticed by the children who have invested a part of themselves in these 598 tasks ("the teacher said we could get like a science area outside to grow plants and things but 599 she never did it…I don't know why"). It is important to follow up on these activities and 600 feedback to the children on the actions been taken, even if the outcome may be perceived as 601 undesirable, so that they feel that their opinions are heard and of value [41]. 602 This somewhat unconscious stance of power and knowledge is often overlooked in 603 environments where the focus is on making well-intentioned changes to the environment 'for 604 the children's sake'. However, the issue still remains and we, as adults know little about the 605 child's becoming and cannot accurately see things from a child's perspective [30]. 606 Effective injury prevention efforts at school are important and should address several factors 607 (i.e., Individual, interpersonal, environmental and policy). However, improvements to the 608 physical environment of the school through regular safety assessments, good quality 609 maintenance, and repairing hazards immediately after they are identified [67], can contribute 610 to the safety of the school children without the need to restrict children's access to specific 611 areas. Although the safety of children should be paramount, children should also be allowed 612 some freedom to choose the activities they wish to take part in, to be able to begin to explore 613 the concept of becoming physically literate. Physical literacy, focuses on the lived body, the 614 embodied dimension of human existence [63], therefore nurturing this aspect of children's 615 lives will make a distinctive contribution to their becoming. 616 As mentioned previously, football dominated the playground, monopolising the space 617 available. Cashmore and Dixon [68] explain that football is inescapable, a sport ingrained into 618 the fabric of communities. It would seem that this is also the case within primary school 619 playgrounds, where football remains the activity dominating the available space. Therefore, 620 as many children engage in this activity during break-times, it can be considered an important 621 and effective catalyst for physical activity participation. However, the barriers that this 622 dominance presents to children, either not interested in football or who have yet to 623 demonstrate an acceptable skill level, cannot be overlooked [33,58,69]. Conversely, as 624 previous focus group studies with children have suggested, it is the lack of alternative space 625 that is the main concern [69] and removing the facilities for football would remove opportunities 626 for the large numbers of children who currently use football as a means of being physically 627 active. Therefore, provision of additional space and/or more effective use of the current space, 628 alongside more inclusive and enjoyable activities for boys and girls is needed. 629 The findings from this qualitative evaluation provides an opportunity for primary schools which 630 match the description of the schools participating in this study, to reflect on primary school 631 playground strategies and practices that are implemented at policy level. However, this study 632 is not without its limitations. Firstly, restricting recruitment to year five and year six children 633 may have overlooked the barriers that exist in the younger key stage 2 children, particularly 7 634 year olds, who will have just been introduced to this new playground. This limits the ability to 635 generalise this study's findings to children of different age groups who are likely to have a 636 different playground experience. As this study did not receive any funding there was a limit to 637 the number of schools and participants the research staff could manage in the time frame. 638 However, limiting the sample to two year groups from four schools allowed for a more 639 comprehensive data acquisition, evaluation and synthesis. Regarding the concept of the 'adult 640 filter', the authors of this study cannot remove their own subconscious adult filter and adult 641 embodiment; however, the comprehensive, flexible and robust methods employed during child 642 focus groups, in addition to the use of respondent validation techniques is a strength of this 643 study and minimises any inaccuracies in the adult interpretation. Furthermore, the use of two 644 authors throughout data collection, transcription and analysis enhances the trustworthiness of 645 the findings presented in this study. In addition, due to staff concerns with interviews 646 (mentioned previously) all staff responses were completed using questionnaires, limiting a 647 more in-depth investigation of the answers provided. It is hypothesised that a more 648 comprehensive response and discussion would be possible using interview methods, and 649 every effort should be made to remove the barriers perceived by members of staff in this study 650 in future studies. Finally, this data was collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. During the 651 pandemic in the UK, primary schools changed the structure of break-times, increasing the 652 number of breaks for fresh air throughout the day. This change in structure might have affected 653 children and staff perceptions of the value of break-times. Future research should explore the 654 effect the COVID-19 pandemic had on the perceptions of school break-times during and post 655

pandemic. 656
By attempting to understand the effect of the various complex interactions that exist within 657 primary school playgrounds will help raise awareness within schools of the implications of 658 supervisory interactions, judgement and management of behaviour, on the health and 659 wellbeing of pupils [70]. 660