Learning Landscapes, caregivers, and young children: Results from a multiple methods study
Abstract
Learning Landscapes (LLs) are family-friendly structures that transform community spaces (e.g., parks and bus stops) into engaging activities. The community structures are designed to encourage children to explore their environment while fostering developmentally supportive interactions (DSI) and learning opportunities between caregivers and children, including children with disabilities. Playful learning provided through LLs could result in developmental gains for children from lower-income backgrounds. The purpose of this multiple methods study, conducted in the US, was to examine 10 caregivers’ perceptions and play interactions with their children while at one outdoor LL. Observational data revealed high caregiver-child engagement, and interview data indicated that caregivers perceived improved positive interactions during LL activities. The LL also promoted caregivers’ knowledge of child development and impacted some participants' perceptions of generalized strategy use. Taken together, environmental prompts, such as those within LLs, can promote DSI in everyday environments, offering opportunities to boost children's early development.
1 INTRODUCTION
As children navigate their world, they seek input from others who build connections and help them learn through familiar and novel experiences. When these experiences occur within the context of positive and responsive caregiving, social-emotional skills such as turn-taking and self-regulation can be taught (Kim & Kochanska, 2012). A study by Song et al. (2017) about informal learning opportunities revealed that more learning occurred by children who explored their surroundings with an adult compared to children who explored it on their own. When analyzing caregiver behavior towards a young child, Van Keer et al. (2017) found a positive correlation between caregiver responsiveness and a child's attention and initiations to their caregiver. Thus, caregivers can play important roles in supporting children's interactions and playful learning; they can encourage the learning of critical skills needed for academic success (Robinson & Brookings Institution, 2019).
One way to support positive and responsive interactions between caregivers and children is through Learning Landscapes (LLs). LLs are transformations of Everyday Spaces (e.g., bus stops, libraries), aimed at creating learning opportunities for children and their caregivers. By focusing on environments embedded within communities, LLs offer ideas, strategies, and suggestions for play activities that encourage learning and skill building with support and guidance provided by caregivers. LLs have been referred to using various terms, including Playful Learning Landscapes (Robinson & Brookings Institution, 2019), Thinkscapes (Hassinger-Das, Palti et al., 2020), and Everyday Spaces (Neuman et al., 2020); however, for this article the term LLs is used.
Activities within LLs are designed by researchers to encourage children to explore their environment with a focus on appropriate learning goals, while increasing developmentally supportive interactions (DSI; Hassinger-Das et al., 2018). Research has shown strong developmental outcomes (i.e., spatial awareness and early numeracy skills) as a result of children's participation in LLs; further, LLs have been identified as ideal contexts for nurturing caregiver-child language interactions (Hassinger-Das et al., 2018; Krippel et al., 2025). One example of an LLs is the Urban Thinkscapes, which include prompts for caregivers to use specific communication strategies at bus stops (Hassinger-Das, Palti, et al., 2020). Another LL example is the Supermarket Speaks Project, which resulted in increased caregiver-child communication when signs were posted in grocery stores to prompt children's use of communication skills (Robinson & Brookings Institution, 2019). Importantly, researchers have noted that LLs can instill community engagement and pride, while promoting learning opportunities and DSI among families from communities with limited resources (Hassinger-Das et al., 2018).
Young children are likely to spend 80% of their time in informal settings, whereas only 20% of their time is spent in school settings (Grob et al., 2017; Meltzoff et al., 2009). Previous research has suggested that playful learning between caregivers and children at LLs could address achievement gaps for children from lower socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds (Hassinger-Das, Zosh, et al., 2020). Specifically, resources and supports in lower SES communities have been found to be less adequate compared to those available in higher SES communities (Duncan & Murnane, 2014; Neuman & Knapczyk, 2022). The settings that families regularly visit in these communities, such as parks, have been under-studied (Hassinger-Das, Palti, et al., 2020), yet they can be impactful contexts for learning. While research has shown positive changes in caregiver perspectives of child learning and caregiver-child interactions when engaging at LLs, research falls short in identifying specific activities that make the most difference (Hassinger-Das, Palti, et al., 2020; Hassinger-Das, Zosh, et al., 2020; Ridge et al., 2015). Also, it is not known if LLs support age-appropriate activities for children with different developmental abilities (Bustamante et al., 2020).
Key Findings
- The quantitative results of this study indicate that caregiver's participation in Learning Landscapes supports positive caregiver-child interactions (i.e., affection, responsiveness, encouragement, teaching).
- Caregivers were primarily from low-income households and had children with and without disabilities, indicating that LLs may promote developmentally supportive interactions for a variety of families.
- During interviews, caregivers shared that participation in the LL improved their understanding of child development and gave them tools for supporting daily interactions with their children.
Statement of Relevance
While playful learning provided through LLs could result in developmental gains for children of all abilities from low-income backgrounds, there is sparse research in this area. Reporting evidence that addresses LLs and their potential benefits will inform practice in the field of early childhood, adding to the literature on this new concept. Caregivers in the current study identified varied skills they learned and how to modify activities for positive engagement with their children, including children with developmental delays or disabilities.
This study focused on the impact of LLs on individuals from low SES households, by exploring caregivers’ perceptions and play interactions with their children while at one outdoor LL. Three research questions guided this study: How do caregivers interact with their child while on an LL trail?; What do caregivers perceive to be the impact of an LL on their interactions with their infant/toddler, as well as on their child's development and learning?; and After visiting an LL, to what extent do caregivers report making changes in their play interactions with their children?
2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Vygotsky's theory on the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) emphasizes the importance of matching guided learning opportunities to a child's developmental level (Vygotsky, 2016/1966). Scaffolding refers to the strategies used to move a child to a deeper understanding and skill level in a developmental area by building upon the child's existing skills, starting at a level that results in success and then advancing to more challenging activities. With caregivers providing scaffolded opportunities through playful learning, children can utilize skills and problem solve in ways they cannot do alone (Kim & Anderson, 2008). Taken together, caregivers determine a child's developmental level as a starting point (ZPD), then scaffold or provide enough support so that the child successfully builds on their current skills and learns new ones.
Adding to the importance of caregiver-child interactions in helping a child learn new skills, the transactional model of development points to the significance of reciprocal relationships as each partner influences the other one (Sroufe, 1988). Leigh et al. (2011) suggest that a caregiver and child's interaction styles affect the ways they engage with one another. For example, as a caregiver realizes that their child is most likely to experience success during short play episodes using gestures and concise verbal instructions, the child might find these interactions extremely enjoyable and seek the adult out more often as a play partner. During explorations at LLs, interactions between caregivers and children can be enhanced, which can create opportunities to extend children's knowledge and skills. The key to maximizing interactions at LLs lies in a caregiver's understanding of various types of interactions (e.g., offering choices can support communication development, responding to a child's needs can build a sense of security) and the quality of these moments (Han & Neuharth-Pritchett, 2014). The two theories, focused on the ZPD and the transactional model, informed the data collected in this study as we analyzed interactions between children and caregivers as dyads, rather than solely focusing on children.
2.1 Positionality
Collectively, our five-member team had a vast amount of experience in early childhood (EC) education, specifically with families and their infants and toddlers from low-income backgrounds. Team members included individuals with graduate degrees in Special Education and Family and Consumer Sciences. While conducting this study, the researchers regularly discussed how their experiences and training impacted their perspectives. The team values diversity, equity, and inclusion, while also acknowledging the power and privilege that was held within the levels of education and status of each member.
Two birth-3 practitioners, with 38 years combined experience, conducted all assessments and observations. One practitioner is Caucasian, and the other is African American; this offered a unique cultural lens when participants engaged in the research activities. Various aspects of analyses were conducted by different co-authors; each team member brought their individual position, knowledge, and interests to the data analysis process. These varied lenses allowed for checks regarding implicit bias across the research team.
3 METHOD
3.1 Recruitment
Participants for this multiple methods study included 10 individuals of low SES households who were eligible for state-funded birth-3 services (e.g., poverty, lack of transportation, unemployment). A local EC program served as a convenience sample for recruitment as it provided services to families of infants and toddlers with or at-risk for disabilities. To remove influences of the EC program on participants, the length of services for families to be eligible for this study was 6 months or less, based on existing program data (BabyTech, 2021; Korfmacher et al., 2012).
Following approval by the university Institutional Review Board, participants were recruited in two ways. First, as individuals were referred to the birth-3 program and deemed eligible, the director shared a flyer with them. Second, the first author evaluated data on current birth-3 families, and if they met the inclusionary criteria, a flyer was shared with them. Inclusionary criteria included: (a) the caregiver was eligible for birth-3 services; (b) the caregiver engaged in program services for 6 months or less at the start of the study; (c) the caregiver had no prior experience at the LL used for this study; and (d) the caregiver was 18 years of age or older. If the caregiver met the inclusion criteria, they were asked to participate, and a consent form was signed.
3.2 Setting
To reduce the influence of their presence, researchers stayed approximately six feet away from the participants during observations at the LL. This allowed the interaction between the caregiver and the child to remain natural, while enabling the observers to see and hear the dyad without intruding. The county in which this study occurred has eight outdoor LLs; however, we selected the LL that allowed for appropriate distancing to ensure accuracy in data collection. The LL location is open and separate from a nearby park that contains playground structures (e.g., slides, swings), situated in an urban community. Participants were offered transportation to the site; those with their own transportation were provided with a gas card to cover mileage.
Ten signs exist along the LL paired with artwork on the sidewalk in front of each sign. For example, one sign suggests that the caregiver and child find a flower or tree, touch it, and then talk about it. The sign provides examples of what the caregiver and child could talk about (e.g., hard or soft, rough or smooth). Each sign includes developmental information that helps caregivers understand why the activity is important (United Way of Champaign County, 2020).
3.3 Instruments
Data were collected using three instruments: a demographic questionnaire, the Parenting Interactions with Children: Checklist of Observations Linked to Outcomes (PICCOLO; Roggman, Cook, Innocenti, Jump Norman, Christiansen, et al., 2013), and an interview protocol. In the next sections, each measure is described in detail.
3.3.1 Demographic questionnaire
Each caregiver completed a 13-item demographic questionnaire via paper and pen prior to completing the LL play observation. The questionnaire was utilized to gain an understanding of their experiences with their children, as well as their educational background and SES level. Questions also focused on the caregiver-child relationship and their experiences with LLs prior to the study.
3.3.2 PICCOLO
The PICCOLO was designed to assess four domains as caregivers interact with their children (i.e., affection, responsiveness, encouragement, and teaching). The 29 items are rated on a 0–2 Likert scale (0 = no behavior observed, 1 = brief, minor or emerging behavior, 2 = definite, strong, or frequent behavior). The PICCOLO has demonstrated strong reliability and validity in research conducted with ethnically diverse families (Roggman, Cook, Innocenti, Jump Norman, & Christiansen, 2013), mothers (Roggman, Cook, Innocenti, Jump Norman, Christiansen, et al., 2013), children with disabilities (Innocenti et al., 2013), nonparental caregivers (Jump Norman & Christiansen, 2013), and fathers (Anderson et al., 2013). While the PICCOLO uses the term parent; for this study caregiver was used to include all individuals who care for and are responsible for a child's daily needs at home. Additionally, in the current study, the researchers completed the PICCOLO on each dyad.
3.3.3 Interview protocol
The semi-structured interview protocol consisted of 14 questions focused on the impact that LLs have on caregivers’ perceptions and play interactions with their children. For example, one question focused on what the caregiver learned about their child through playing at the LL. Further, caregivers were asked if they recreated activities in other settings and what modifications, if any, that they made. Interview questions were developed based on a review of the LL literature (cf., Bustamante et al., 2020; Hassinger-Das, Palti, et al., 2020). Questions were reviewed by four staff from the EC program and piloted by three former families from the program. Minor revisions, focused on clarity and the order of questions, were made to the protocol after pilot testing.
3.4 Study procedures
3.4.1 Observations at LL
Data collection occurred during the Spring and Summer of 2022. For the PICCOLO observations, the first author instructed the caregiver to begin at the welcome sign and then proceed through the LL Trail. Caregivers were instructed to attempt to re-engage their child if they became uninterested. If the child was not interested after two attempts, the caregiver was instructed to move to the next LL sign. All observations occurred during the day. A pilot test revealed that it would take a family less than 35 min to complete the LL trail; however, each caregiver and child set their own pace. Observers were positioned approximately 6 feet from each dyad to gather data.
3.4.2 PICCOLO administration
Two members of the research team were trained to gather data using the PICCOLO in 2014; booster trainings were completed in 2022 in which they read about the content, objectives, and coding guidelines and then watched a training video of caregiver-child interactions. After each segment, they followed prompts to practice scoring the interaction, and then the training video resumed to discuss the experts’ scoring of the video. This exercise was repeated across several segments.
The two observers conducted a pilot test of live observations for three caregiver-child dyads enrolled in the EC program, who were not eligible to participate in this study. When pilot testing the PICCOLO, the data collectors learned valuable information concerning the need to consider the LL as a whole versus considering each sign/activity individually. The time to complete an observation of the entire trail matched the PICCOLO training time frame more accurately than attempting to score the PICCOLO at each individual sign/activity; this resulted in the decision to complete the PICCOLO once for each dyad, looking across the LL as a whole. Interobserver Agreement (IOA) was calculated by counting the total number of agreements per domain and dividing it by the number of exact agreements plus disagreements, then multiplying this by 100. This resulted in four separate IOA scores, representing the four domains for each pilot dyad. Following the first observation, the PICCOLO was scored independently. IOA was 100% for domains one and two, 71% for domain three, and 63% for the fourth domain. When they discussed their disagreements, the data collectors discovered a difference in their interpretations of some items. For example, item two on the PICCOLO domain of Encouragement asks if the caregiver encourages the child to handle the toys. While there were no physical toys at the LL studied, one data collector interpreted this question to mean “encourage the child to engage with the activity,” while the other scored this item a zero given that no toys were present at the LL and included in the dyad's play. Once the data collectors discussed disagreements and adapted the definitions as they related to the target LL activities, IOA improved for the remaining pilot participants. IOA was calculated for the second caregiver-child dyad at 100% for domain one and two, 86% for domain three, and 88% for domain four. For the third caregiver-child dyad, IOA was 100% for domains one, two, and three, and 88% for the fourth domain. IOA across domains averaged 83%, 93%, and 97% for pilot participants one through three, respectively.
Inter-observer agreement (IOA)
For this study, IOA was calculated on the PICCOLO for 50% of the observations. Point-by-point IOA was calculated for each of the items across all four domains (i.e., affection, responsiveness, encouragement, teaching) and surpassed 80%. The agreement was defined as both data collectors scoring an item in the same way.
3.4.3 Interviews
The first author contacted each participant within a week after the LL observation to schedule an interview. This timeframe allowed participants time after their LL experience to possibly utilize ideas from the LL in their home or in the community and then describe these during their Zoom interview. Interviews were transcribed verbatim by a graduate student. The first author reviewed them for accuracy and made all necessary corrections. Interviews averaged 22.10 min (range = 19–30 min). Following their interview, each participant received an activity bag that included bubbles, sidewalk chalk, and children's books in appreciation for their time.
3.5 Data analysis
3.5.1 PICCOLO
One PICCOLO play observation was conducted at the LL for each dyad by the researchers. Descriptive statistics were calculated to determine the total scores, means, and ranges for all dyadic interactions. Roggman, Cook, Innocenti, Jump Norman, Christiansen, et al. (2013) found that higher PICCOLO scores were indicative of caregivers who demonstrated more DSI behaviors when interacting with their children. However, it was not unusual for caregivers to be stronger in one domain than another. Therefore, descriptive statistics were calculated within and across each PICCOLO domain. During PICCOLO observations, field notes were taken to provide information regarding caregiver-child interactions at each of the 10 LL signs, including data on which activities caregivers and children spent the most and least amount of time.
3.5.2 Interviews
Interview transcripts were reviewed by the first author to become familiar with the data, by reading and re-reading all material in its entirety (Tesch, 1990). Interview data were analyzed using a descriptive phenomenological approach focused on participants’ lived experiences (Porter & Cohen, 2012). The phenomenological method was formed in the early 1900s (c.f., Husserl & Boyce Gibson, 1932) with a focus on the life experience of participants, suggesting this was the initial step to knowledge. To fully understand participants’ perceptions of their LL experience and the impact of LLs, semi-structured interviews were conducted. In preparation for coding, transcripts were segmented by the first author, and then analyzed by two researchers to begin identifying codes across participants (Savin-Baden & Major, 2013). The process of open coding was used to start breaking the data into meaningful units, followed by axial coding to identify relationships and connections within the codes. The researchers independently drafted codes for each segment within two transcripts and met to discuss them and reach a consensus (Patton, 1990). This process of consensus coding was repeated until an initial codebook was formalized. The codebook was used to analyze one interview at a time. The codes were grouped into categories and then themes were developed to synthesize the data (Corbin & Strauss, 1990; see Appendix A). One-page member-checks were then created and provided to each participant within 2 days following their interview; no changes were requested by participants.
3.5.3 Trustworthiness
Multiple types of data were gathered to look for connections across each method to understand participants’ experiences (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Triangulation also occurred using field notes taken during the interviews and PICCOLO observations (e.g., activities families seemed most interested in). By examining the data using multiple methods, a deeper understanding of the participants’ LL experiences emerged (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In the following section, pseudonyms are used to protect participants’ identity.
4 RESULTS
Ten dyads, who had recently enrolled in EC services, participated in this study. While all caregivers were female, they represented various racial groups, ages, and levels of education. See Table 1 for demographic information.
| N (%) | |
|---|---|
| Relationship to child | |
| Mother | 8 (80%) |
| Stepmother or great grandmother | 2 (20%) |
| Race of caregiver | |
| Caucasian | 1 (10%) |
| Black/African American | 2 (20%) |
| Latino, Hispanic, or other Spanish origin | 3 (30%) |
| Multi-racial | 2 (20%) |
| Asian | 2 (20%) |
| Caregiver age | |
| Under 25 | 4 (40%) |
| 25–35 | 4 (40%) |
| 36–45 | 1 (10%) |
| Over 56 | 1 (10%) |
| Highest level of education | |
| Some college | 2 (20%) |
| High School/GED completion | 5 (50%) |
| Some High School | 2 (20%) |
| No response | 1 (10%) |
| Child's gender | |
| Female | 6 (60%) |
| Male | 4 (40%) |
| Child's age (in months) | |
| 12 | 1 (10%) |
| 14 | 2 (20%) |
| 18 | 2 (20%) |
| 20 | 1 (10%) |
| 23 | 1 (10%) |
| 36 | 1 (10%) |
| 47 | 2 (20%) |
| Child's disability | |
| Language delay | 2 (20%) |
| Gross motor delay | 1 (10%) |
| Developmental, language, & motor delay | 1 (10%) |
| No delay identified | 6 (60%) |
4.1 RQ 1: How do caregivers interact with their child while on an LL trail?
PICCOLO and interview data provided insights into the nature of dyadic interactions and are discussed in the following sections. Eight themes were identified from the interview data; three themes were related to the first research question.
4.1.1 Quantitative results
Observations were conducted to measure how caregivers interacted with their children while on an LL trail. Observations of caregiver-child dyads (M = 17.7 min, range = 14–25 min) revealed high scores across PICCOLO domains and the total scores (see Table 2), with mean scores for all families substantially higher than the reported mean score from the PICCOLO measurement sample (12.7 points higher than the measurement sample mean). In the current study, the Teaching domain received the highest mean score (14.4) yet was the most variable (range: 11–16 points). Encouragement had the lowest mean score (12.3 points), while the Affection domain received a mean score of 13.5 points (2.8 points above the measurement sample mean), and Responsiveness had a mean score of 12.5 points (1.4 points above the measurement sample mean). See Table 3 for individual participant scores.
| Mean (range) | Std. deviation | Variance | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Teaching | 14.4 (11–16) | 2.011 | 4.044 |
| Affection | 13.5 (13–14) | .527 | .278 |
| Responsiveness | 12.5 (10–14) | 1.650 | 2.722 |
| Encouragement | 12.3 (10–14) | 1.889 | 3.567 |
| PICCOLO totals | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participant | Race | Affection | Responsiveness | Encouragement | Teaching |
| (HPS = 14) | (HPS = 14) | (HPS = 14) | HPS = 16) | ||
| Zara | Asian | 14 | 14 | 14 | 16 |
| Aria | African American | 14 | 13 | 14 | 16 |
| Myra | Hispanic | 14 | 14 | 14 | 16 |
| Sarah | Caucasian | 14 | 14 | 14 | 16 |
| Carmen | Hispanic | 13 | 12 | 11 | 15 |
| Jayda | Multiracial | 13 | 11 | 10 | 14 |
| Dior | African American | 13 | 10 | 10 | 11 |
| Zoe | Hispanic | 13 | 13 | 12 | 12 |
| Edrina | Multiracial | 14 | 14 | 14 | 16 |
| Ayesha | Asian | 13 | 10 | 10 | 12 |
- Note: All participants were given a pseudonym to protect their identity.
- Abbreviation: HPS, highest potential score.
4.1.2 Qualitative results
Three themes emerged from the interview data and were related to caregiver-child interactions: facilitation of positive interactions, preferred activities, and a need for additional support.
Caregivers’ facilitation of positive interactions
I enjoyed two of [the activities] really a lot, because she got to be really interactive. Like when there was one with hopscotch…not only could we jump with it and be interactive, but then it was a learning thing as well because we could go over the blocks with the numbers and the letters together and say them. And so that was a great learning experience.
A few caregivers noted that the prompts embedded in the LL allowed them to feel more confident interacting with their children. Zara said, “It helps me know how to play with her to see if she can engage back.” As a first-time mother, Carmen expressed “It just kind of helped me come out my shell more as a mother because this is my first child, and so I've never been silly and acting out things, so this is all new for me. So that kind of helped give me ideas to do that.” For these caregivers, the LL promoted DSI, something they found to be particularly valuable for them and their children.
Preferred activities
I really enjoyed walking through the trail with her, and actually, she was leading me, so I actually liked that part. She was moving from one activity to another, and it was like she chose everything. She just decided how long to do each activity. So, yeah, that was really good.
While not all LL activities were equally enjoyable for all families, all caregivers reported enjoying several LL activities. The variety of activities at the LL allowed for varied experiences that were acceptable to caregivers with differing preferences.
Some caregivers need support with adaptations
Some caregivers may need support to achieve generalized benefits from the LL and promote positive child outcomes at home and in the community. Based on participant interviews, additional support related to the LL activities fell into two categories: modifying the activities to accommodate children's needs and getting additional guidance from professionals regarding how to use strategies to promote children's development.
It's kind of harder for me to make that activity more for his age and he could understand. I was kind of stuck on that, so I kind of just read the sign and just tried to go off the sign because I didn't know how else to say it in his age group, where he would understand.
I think every single activity you can actually adapt the activity to your kids, like I said, to your kid's age and your kid's level. That's what makes the activities very fun and very versatile…Like, for example, the hopscotch. You know if I just carry my baby and I jump with him. So even though he wasn't able to jump, I was doing it with him.
Taken together, these examples illustrate how some barriers can be addressed through slight modifications of an activity; however, these modifications may not be immediately apparent to caregivers. Support from EC professionals by way of suggestions for adaptations may be beneficial when such obstacles present themselves to families as they explore LLs.
The second type of support that emerged from the interviews was to provide guidance and coaching around LL activities and strategies. For example, Ayesha reported that her child might be more interested in an activity if she were not involved, but rather if other adults facilitated children's engagement. For this caregiver, additional guided practice in following her child's lead and joining in activities in non-directive ways may help promote sustained positive interactions between her and her child.
4.2 RQ 2: What do caregivers perceive to be the impact of an LL on their interactions with their infant/toddler?
The interview data provided insights into caregiver perceptions of the impact of an LL. Two themes were identified: caregiver knowledge of child development and the importance of caregiver-child interactions for learning.
4.2.1 Caregivers’ understanding of child development
All of [the LL] was learning, every single part of it, was learning. From the first one, I think it was ABCs and 123s, and then even when you're doing the reenacting of the animals and stuff. I mean, she's learning what animals do and how they sound. Then with the hopscotch, she's learning letters and numbers on that as well…
In everyday life, we don't realize there's so many things that we can explain. So, you know, you're walking through the house and there's a puzzle piece, or you know, because she is an 18-month-old, so we have puzzles hanging around…I can just be more expressive with her with that, instead of just going about our day.
Participants found that the LL activities provided experiences with embedded tools to guide them to learn more about their children and how they develop a variety of skills. Many caregivers noted how simple LL strategies, such as the previous example, promoted DSI with their children.
4.2.2 The importance of interactions for learning
Through participation in the LL, caregivers described how they learned about the relationship between children's play, sustained caregiver-child interactions, and children's learning. Edrina discussed the challenges associated with being a working mom when she said, “It's just been really challenging trying to find time to do things with her. But me seeing each one of those stations only took a couple minutes, so I mean I could be doing that with her every day.” Edrina acknowledged that LL strategies could be easily embedded into daily routines, taking just a little time while promoting learning.
Another caregiver, Aria, noted how the LL strategies impacted the way she and her son now play. She remarked, “He's learning every day and if I give him the tools, you know, he's gonna get ready for school in the future.” While caregivers found the LL strategies promoted DSI, they also noted that the strategies had an impact on children's development. When discussing her interactions with her children since experiencing the LL, Sarah stated, “It was fun to see what we've been teaching her; she remembered everything at once because she's been struggling with numbers and letters, but shapes and colors, she's been striving it.” All caregivers identified ways they learned, through their LL experiences, about how their interactions with their children were important. As Dior put it, “…I feel like being outside grabs the child's attention, and that's something I don't do a lot of…I'm not like super interactive so that's definitely something I learned that I need to do.”
4.3 RQ 3: After visiting an LL, to what extent do caregivers report making changes in their play interactions with their children?
The interview data provided insights into caregiver perceptions of change, with three themes identified: continued use of LL strategies, impact of the LL on generalized caregiver-child interactions, and the desire to return to the LL.
4.3.1 Continued use of LL strategies
Actually, after we did the trail that day she was like, “I can see that bird,” and I was like, I remember one of the activities asked you “What do you see?” So, then we moved and walked around talking about those kinds of things. Like birds chirping or trees, things like that outside.
Overall, most caregivers reported that LL strategies did not need to be modified to be used successfully at home. Additionally, several caregivers described how they recreated LL activities using materials they already had or activities that were naturally occurring.
4.3.2 Generalized interactions with children
Several caregivers remarked on how exposure to the LL gave them ideas for meaningfully engaging with their children. Myra noted that participation in the LL impacted how she now embeds learning opportunities when interacting with her child, saying “It does impact my interactions with him because now I realized that learning is happening all the time, so I use every little experience and every interaction in order for me to teach him the letters, the colors, the shapes and so on.” Ayesha commented on how the LL has encouraged her to meaningfully engage with all of her children, saying “I think it gave me more ideas to spend more time with my son and my daughters too, to involve them in the activities more.”
I think she seems happier, and that's more so because Mommy is out of her shell and more playful and funny and does crazy, silly things. That was kind of helpful for me to be able to do that; [the LL] gave me more creativity to be that way. And she sees now I'm silly all the time and she just loves it. She cracks up.
This quote illustrates how participating in LLs may be helpful for caregivers who are still developing confidence in interacting with their children. That said, data from caregiver interviews indicated that participation in LLs may support positive caregiver-child interactions regardless of a caregiver's prior experience or confidence levels.
4.3.3 Returning to the LL
Caregivers generally reported that they valued their experience while on the LL, and expressed an interest in returning to the LL. As Aria said, “I will definitely come back because it is a way for me to learn how to interact and teach my son, and we're both learning.” This sentiment also was shared by Zoe, who said “Yeah, I want to go back. It was nice there. I wouldn't change anything there either, honestly.”
We actually went back, but I did it in Spanish with him…And when you asked what you would change, I will never say change the language. But since English is not my first language and I usually talk to him in Spanish, I know how to read, and I understand. So, what I do is that I translate the activities in Spanish, and it feels more natural. But it's almost the same when you translate. When I do it in Spanish, I'm doing practically the same thing.
This feedback indicates that LL experiences may be acceptable and beneficial to families from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Additionally, while all caregivers reported no prior knowledge about LLs in their community, they all indicated an interest in exploring other neighborhood LLs. Taken altogether, these data indicate that LLs in this community appear to be a highly valuable but under-accessed resource.
5 DISCUSSION
While LLs are a relatively new concept, research has demonstrated positive outcomes related to caregiver-child interactions and caregiver perceptions (Hassinger-Das, Palti, et al., 2020; Hassinger-Das, Zosh, et al., 2020; Ridge et al., 2015). When considering transforming community spaces into LLs, the cost must be considered; however, many studies have identified low-cost strategies such as the use of signs with learning connections, simple prompts, and suggestions for conversations and interactions (Bustamante et al., 2020; Hassinger-Das, Palti, et al., 2020; Hassinger-Das, Zosh, et al., 2020; Ridge et al., 2015; Song et al., 2017). As noted by multiple participants in the current study, caregivers found the strategies and activities on the LL trail to be fun for them and their children, as well as simple to do. Caregivers reported that the LL provided new ways to engage with their children and ideas for how to incorporate learning opportunities to address areas where their children may be struggling. Participants went on to explain how learning innovative ideas and strategies to engage with their children through play and learning is a process and they believed the LL provided them with assistance in this area.
Ridge et al. (2015) identified gaps in the literature surrounding LLs and their ability to impact the daily routines of caregivers and children. Caregivers who participated in the current study identified a variety of skills that they learned on the LL trail and discussed ways that they would modify or adjust an activity to fit their everyday settings. For example, one caregiver shared how they learned new ideas from the LL about how to play while teaching new skills at home. Specifically, this caregiver described replicating the LL activities, including hopscotch and additional play ideas with animals and animal sounds. Other caregivers identified changes in their interactions with their children that have positively impacted their relationships. Examples of this can be seen in comments from caregivers who reported that they learned that they could embed these simple strategies at home (e.g., being silly together, narration) instead of “simply getting through the day.” All 10 participants reported that they wanted to return to the LL.
Bustamante et al. (2020) reported that the research on LLs falls short in identifying if LLs provide age-appropriate activities for children of varying abilities. The current study extends the literature by exploring caregivers’ need for assistance in making adaptations within LLs. Modifications to LL activities based on children's abilities, skills, and preferences may facilitate engagement and learning, and may need to be supported by practitioners (Krippel et al., 2025). Additionally, Krippel et al. (2025) identified LL modifications that caregivers could make to include children of a variety of ages and abilities. For example, when adapting an LL activity that promotes motor development—such as one that prompts children to play hopscotch—modifications can be made for children who use mobility devices or have limited independent mobility. A child using a wheelchair could roll along the hopscotch path to follow the sequence. Or, for an infant who does not yet walk independently, a caregiver might support the child's feet to touch each square, helping them “hop” through the activity. Alternatively, the caregiver could carry the child and demonstrate the movements themselves to model participation.
Participating caregivers reported that the LL generally provided sufficient opportunities for positive engagement with their children, including children with developmental delays or disabilities. Some caregivers described their ability to modify or adapt activities for their children, with and without disabilities and/or delays, while others reported that making adaptations was challenging. These findings contribute to the literature and provide caution in that while many caregivers identified the impact that LLs had on their experiences with their children, some caregivers expressed hesitation about using the strategies, given their child's age and/or abilities. Additional research should be conducted to determine what supports are needed for families who are hesitant to make modifications or who are unsure of how to modify an LL to their child's developmental level. Adding a QR code to LL signage that directs caregivers to additional resources and strategy ideas might be one way to support caregivers who struggle to create modifications.
In addition to the qualitative findings, it is worth mentioning that the PICCOLO normative sample reported the highest mean score of caregiver behaviors in the Responsiveness domain, with the Teaching domain receiving the lowest mean score (Cook & Roggman, 2013). In the current study, caregiver-child observations while on the LL trail resulted in the Teaching domain having the highest mean score of caregiver behaviors, 6.8 points over the measurement sample. While all four PICCOLO domains were higher in this study than the PICCOLO sample, it is noteworthy that the Teaching domain was substantially higher. This suggesting the LL trails might be designed to naturally guide caregivers with ideas and strategies to teach varied skills to their children, as well as provide opportunities for DSI. The high scores compared to the normative sample, even when considering differences in sample sizes, suggests that environmental prompts, like those provided in LLs, can promote DSI within community environments, offering support to entire communities to promote children's early development.
5.1 Limitations
While the findings from this study revealed several benefits of LL structures in terms of DSI, the study is not without limitations. First, the sample focused on families that were identified through EC services and further exploration is needed to examine the impact of LLs on various groups. Second, in this study, a specific LL was utilized for accuracy in data collection, as it allowed space between the signs and activities for each dyad to enjoy one activity at a time without distraction. It would be beneficial to examine the benefits of LL trails in various settings, which could provide valuable insight for future LL projects. Finally, quantitative data indicated that LLs may promote DSI between caregivers and children; however, given the small sample size and the absence of a control group, these data must be interpreted with caution.
5.2 Implications for research
This study was an initial exploration into how participation in LLs may meaningfully impact families and children with or at-risk for disabilities. The results indicate that participation in one LL was perceived as beneficial to caregivers of very young children. Future researchers should aim to utilize experimental analyses of the impact of visiting an LL on caregivers’ uptake of DSI practices, leading to a notable addition to this literature. This would allow for variables to be controlled and for researchers to observe dyadic engagement at an LL, which is critical for understanding the influences of various factors on the outcomes of a study. Specifically, future studies should include a control group, allowing researchers to determine the extent to which LLs are responsible for increases in caregivers’ use of DSI strategies with their children. Because some caregivers may require additional support to use the strategies embedded in LLs, further analyses of (a) who may benefit from additional guidance and (b) the amount and types of support needed to promote the generalized use of strategies also would be beneficial.
LLs are accessible, low-cost resources that exist in many communities. However, caregivers in the current study reported that they had no prior knowledge of or experience with LLs. Further research on how EC professionals might leverage existing, accessible community resources like LLs to support caregivers’ learning of evidence-based practices is needed. A meaningful extension of this work might include exploring the best methods for disseminating information about LLs to families and EC professionals.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
APPENDIX A
| Code or subcode | Definition | |
| Caregiver-focused codes | ||
| LL did not impact generalized interactions with child | Caregiver states that participating in the LL did not change how they interact with their child at home or in the community. Caregiver-child interactions remain similar to their interactions prior to the LL Trail. | |
| LL impacted caregiver-child interaction | Caregiver states that participating in the LL trail somehow changed, altered, or modified how they interact with their child at home or in the community. Caregiver identifies changes to the dyads interactions post LL Trail. | |
| Caregiver learned… | ||
|
Caregiver learned: About their child |
Caregiver states that participating in the LL caused them to learn new information about their child and/or how to support them (e.g., their specific preferences, skills, learning, and development). This does not overlap with learning about child development more broadly. | |
Caregiver learned: New specific strategies |
Caregiver identifies specific elements of the trail or LL activity that they utilize post-LL trail that is new to them. Caregiver states that they learned new specific strategies for supporting their child's engagement, language, play, or learning from the LL. | |
Caregiver learned: Importance of playing |
Caregiver makes a statement about learning information about how play is important for children, or how play is important as part of caregiver-child interactions. Caregiver identifies that they learned new information about the connection between play and development and/or learning. | |
Caregiver learned: Importance of interactions |
Caregiver makes a statement about how interacting with their child (or children in general) is connected to/critical for development or learning. | |
Caregiver learned: About how children learn/develop |
Caregiver states that they learned something about child learning or child development from the LL (e.g., children learn through play, through experiences, etc.) | |
Caregiver learned: Generalize activities to additional setting |
Caregiver makes a statement about learning to use LL strategies in a new setting or at home. | |
| Caregiver did not learn… | ||
Caregiver did not learn: About their child |
Caregiver states that participating in the LL did not cause them to learn any new information about their child (e.g., preferences, skills, learning, development). | |
Caregiver did not learn: New strategies for play |
Caregiver states that they did not learn any new strategies for play when participating in the LL. Caregiver may state that they already knew all of the strategies on the LL, or that they did not learn new strategies or ways to play with their child. | |
| Caregiver identifies helpful strategies | Caregiver makes a statement about specific strategies they found useful, helpful, or beneficial for them or their child. | |
| Caregiver identifies non-preferred strategies | Caregiver makes a statement about specific strategies they didn't find useful or helpful, or that they did not enjoy or prefer. | |
| Caregiver enjoyed | Caregiver states that they liked participating in some aspects of the LL or its activities. Caregiver may identify ways in which they enjoyed the activities, trail, and/or engagement. | |
| Teaching through play | Caregivers describe a specific process of teaching skills/concepts through play with their children, where the caregiver is instilling knowledge intentionally in a play-based manner. | |
| Caregivers are important to child learning | Caregivers identify that caregivers/family members are important to promoting children's learning and development. | |
| No prior experience | Caregiver identifies that they have not seen or experienced a Born Learning Trail prior to this visit. | |
| Identified possible play ideas | Caregiver describes potential ideas for playing with their child in the context of LL activities either on the trail or when replicating at home. | |
| Caregiver needed additional support | Caregiver descriptions of the trail, activities, learning processes, and/or child development indicate a potential or disconnect or misunderstanding about how strategies on the trail promote positive outcomes, can work at home, etc., or that the caregiver needed additional support in understanding how to use a strategy effectively. This is a general code applied to instances in which caregivers may have misunderstood or misattributed something about the trail. | |
| Child-focused codes | ||
| Child enjoyed | Caregiver states that their child liked participating in some aspects of the LL or its activities. Caregiver may identify ways in which their child enjoyed the activities, trail, and/or engagement. | |
| Child learning… | ||
|
Child learning: Strategies promote child learning |
Caregiver states that the LL strategies influence children's learning or skills, language, play, etc. Caregivers may discuss varieties of child learning, not limited to above examples. | |
|
Child learning: Learning through play |
Caregiver makes a statement about the connection between children's learning and children's playing, or implies that the two occur simultaneously within activities. Caregiver may specifically identify a form of play and learning happening together. | |
| Learning can be fun | Caregiver makes a statement about how children can enjoy learning things. | |
| Difference in child's play from home to the LL trail | Caregiver identifies specific elements of play that are different from the way the child plays at home vs. the trail. | |
| Child didn't enjoy activity | Caregiver states that their child did not like an activity or an aspect of an activity. | |
| Barriers to Engagement… | ||
|
Barriers to Engagement: Child confusion |
Caregivers state that an activity on the LL was confusing or unclear, leading their child to become confused about something/not knowing what to do during an LL activity. This prevented them from engaging with the LL fully. Note: Confusion/being unable to participate only due to developmental level should not be coded here. |
|
|
Barriers to Engagement: Child skill/ability/developmental level |
Caregivers state that their child's developmental level or skills were not high enough to fully participate in the LL or some aspect of an LL activity/when recreating elsewhere. | |
|
Barriers to Engagement: Distractions |
Caregiver states that their child was too distracted to fully engage with the activities during the LL trail or that there are distractions present that prevent recreating the strategies elsewhere. | |
|
Barriers to Engagement: Multiple children |
Caregiver states that dividing attention between multiple children in some way (carrying an infant/attending to multiple children's interests) was difficult or challenging during the LL trail | |
| Modifications codes | ||
| No modifications to LL activities… | ||
|
No modifications to LL activities: No modifications needed to trail itself |
Caregiver states that the trail did not require any changes in format, structure, strategies, etc. to be able to access the LL content effectively. | |
|
No modifications to LL activities: No modifications needed when replicating at home |
Caregiver identifies that there are no modifications needed or used when replicating/recreating activity at home or in the community. No modifications needed in terms of structure, strategies, format, etc. | |
| Made modifications to LL activities | Caregiver states that they changed some aspect of the LL activity when participating in the LL trail. | |
| Identified usefulness for modification | Caregiver states that a particular modification to the LL trail or LL strategy was/would be helpful or beneficial, and may or may not share why the modification or change was helpful. | |
| Potential modifications described… | ||
|
Potential modifications described: Modifications to trail itself |
Caregiver describes ways that the LL trail could potentially be modified or changed (but may not have actually made them). | |
|
Potential modifications described: Modifications when recreating at home |
Caregiver describes potential modifications for use of the strategies at home (but may not have actually made them yet). | |
|
Potential modifications described: Modifications when returning to LL trail |
Caregiver describes or identifies potential modifications or changes that could be made when returning to the trail. | |
|
Potential modifications described: Modify for child's ability |
Caregiver describes or identifies potential modification or changes for child's ability, skill level, or developmental needs. Caregiver may describe how modifications would make it more accessible/better for a particular child skill/ability/developmental level. | |
| Replication and returning codes | ||
| Has recreated strategies elsewhere | Caregiver identifies that they have recreated strategies/activities from the trail elsewhere after experiencing the LL. | |
| Has not recreated strategies elsewhere | Caregiver identifies that they have NOT recreated strategies/activities from the trail after experiencing the LL | |
| Caregiver plans to return | Caregiver identifies that they want to/plan to return to the trail for another visit. | |
| Caregiver has returned | Caregiver identifies that they have already returned to the trail at least once since the initial visit. | |
| Brought other family members/individuals to trail | Caregiver states that they have brought other family members/individuals to the LL trail for a visit. | |
| Interested in additional LL trails | Caregiver states they are interested in learning about or visiting additional LL trails in the community. | |
| Characteristics/descriptions of the trail and activities codes | ||
| LL trail interactive | Caregiver describes the trail or features of the trail/activities as being interactive or having interactive components for caregivers/children to engage with. | |
| LL activity engaging | Caregiver describes specific elements or details of the activity as being engaging. Caregiver may describe the trail or features of the trail/activities as promoting meaningful engagement from their child or themselves, or the caregiver describes how their child was specifically engaged by an aspect of the trail/activity. | |
| Child led/directed | Caregiver describes how the child made the decisions about where they spent their time on the LL trail. Caregiver describes that the trail or features of the trail/activities allowed for following the child's lead. | |
| Uncategorized codes | ||
| Not Codable | Segment is not able to be coded/no code fits the segment. | |
Open Research
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.
