Why Playground Markings Work Best For Primary-aged Kids (and What Early Learning Centres Need Instead)

By Author: Edu Marking
Total Articles: 9
Comment this article

Why Playground Markings Work Best for Primary-Aged Kids (And What Early Learning Centres Need Instead)

Playground markings have become a go-to intervention for schools wanting to lift children's physical activity levels, and for good reason: they are cheap, long-lasting and require no ongoing staff training to maintain. But a closer look at the research reveals an important nuance that many schools and early learning centres overlook. Markings do not work the same way for every age group, and understanding this gap can mean the difference between a playground investment that pays off and one that simply sits underused.

The evidence for primary-aged children is strong

For children aged roughly six to eleven, the research is consistently positive. A longitudinal study following three elementary schools in France over 12 months found that a playground marking intervention produced measurable, sustained increases in recess physical activity. A separate systematic review found that markings ...
... combined with physical structures lifted moderate physical activity by 5.9 percent and vigorous physical activity by 1.7 percent, with meaningful gains still detectable after 24 weeks.

That said, the same review found the effect faded by the 52-week mark. This is a useful finding in itself: it suggests markings are not a "paint it once and forget it" solution for primary schools. Refreshing designs, rotating games, or introducing new marking zones periodically appears necessary to keep engagement, and the activity benefits, from tapering off over time.

The picture is very different for preschoolers

When researchers turned their attention to younger children, aged three to five, the results told a different story. One well-cited study examining preschool playgrounds found no significant effect of markings on children's activity time. Similarly, research into Flemish preschools found that markings were not a significant predictor of physical activity levels at all, regardless of gender.

A broader systematic review of preschool playground factors reached a similar conclusion, finding markings among several environmental features that failed to significantly predict activity outcomes in this age group. Taken together, this body of research suggests that simply painting hopscotch grids or number games onto an early learning centre's outdoor space is unlikely, on its own, to shift how active preschool-aged children are.

Why the age gap exists

The most plausible explanation lies in how children of different ages interact with structured play cues. Primary-aged children are generally able to interpret a set of painted lines, recognise the game it represents, and organise themselves and their peers to play it, often without adult involvement. Preschool-aged children are still developing this capacity for self-directed, rule-based play.

This is supported by a 2022 study published in the Southeast Asia Early Childhood Journal, which found that children spent more time in high-activity states at playground markings specifically when that engagement was paired with teacher-led instruction. Left to their own devices, younger children appear less likely to translate a painted design into sustained physical activity without some form of adult scaffolding.

The exception that proves the rule

Interestingly, more recent research suggests playground markings can still work for preschoolers, provided they are designed with intent. A randomised controlled pilot trial testing "painted playgrounds" using stencils such as hopscotch and foursquare, specifically built to target fundamental motor skill development rather than general play, showed promising results for physical activity and motor skill improvement in early childhood education settings.

The distinguishing factor appears to be purpose. Generic games borrowed from primary school playgrounds may not translate well to a preschool setting, but markings deliberately designed around the motor skills preschoolers are developmentally ready to build, jumping, hopping, balancing, seem to have a genuine effect, particularly when educators are actively involved in guiding the activity.

What this means for schools and early learning centres

The practical takeaway is straightforward: playground marking design should be matched to the developmental stage of the children using it.

For primary schools, more complex, self-directed games such as four square, hopscotch variations, target games and sports court markings give children the tools to organise their own active play. Refreshing or rotating these designs periodically helps sustain engagement over the school year.

For early learning centres and preschools, simpler markings focused on fundamental motor skills, paired with structured, teacher-guided activities, are far more likely to deliver a measurable benefit than markings alone. Expecting a preschool playground to replicate the results seen in primary schools, without factoring in the need for adult-led play, is likely to lead to disappointing results.

A necessary caveat

It is worth noting that not all research is unanimous on the impact of markings, even for older children. A broader systematic review covering both school and preschool playgrounds found the overall evidence for playground markings in isolation was inconclusive, with the strongest evidence instead pointing to the value of portable and fixed play equipment. This suggests markings work best not as a standalone solution, but as one part of a broader playground strategy that also considers equipment provision and supervision practices.

The bottom line

Playground markings remain one of the most cost-effective tools available for encouraging physical activity in Australian schools, but only when applied with an understanding of who they are designed for. Primary schools can expect solid, evidence-backed returns from well-designed, varied markings. Early learning centres and preschools need a different approach: motor-skill-focused designs backed by active educator involvement, rather than a scaled-down version of a primary school playground.