Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T03:21:16.870Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Grounds for Learning: Schoolyard Activities as Provocations, Scaffolds and Mediators for Childhood Learning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2017

Paul Johnson*
Affiliation:
Arbury Park Outdoor School
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Compelling evidence links childhood experiences in quasi-natural settings with learning and wellbeing, but, as cities grow, children's activities have been increasingly restricted to de-natured spaces that are designed or controlled by adults. In recent years, academics and education practitioners have campaigned to reverse this trend, and one result is that Australian early childhood centres and schools increasingly provide environments that enhance opportunities for children to engage with nature. These moves are also underpinned by higher-level policy initiatives. For example, the National Quality Standard, Element 3.2.1, requires that early childhood outdoor spaces are designed so that children experience natural environments (ACECQA, 2013). Similarly, the South Australian Department for Education and Child Development (2016, p. 5) Outdoor Learning Environments Standard mandates ‘balanced environments which instil a sense of wonder, generate curiosity and spark the imagination of children and young people’. However, despite recent interest and policy initiatives, the processes by which environments influence learning remain ‘under-researched’ (Engelen et al., 2013, p. 324) and constitute a ‘significant blind spot’ (Rickinson et al., 2004, p. 8) in the literature.

Type
Thesis Synopsis
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2017 

Conferring Institution, Date

Flinders University, December 2015

Thesis Synopsis

Compelling evidence links childhood experiences in quasi-natural settings with learning and wellbeing, but, as cities grow, children's activities have been increasingly restricted to de-natured spaces that are designed or controlled by adults. In recent years, academics and education practitioners have campaigned to reverse this trend, and one result is that Australian early childhood centres and schools increasingly provide environments that enhance opportunities for children to engage with nature. These moves are also underpinned by higher-level policy initiatives. For example, the National Quality Standard, Element 3.2.1, requires that early childhood outdoor spaces are designed so that children experience natural environments (ACECQA, 2013). Similarly, the South Australian Department for Education and Child Development (2016, p. 5) Outdoor Learning Environments Standard mandates ‘balanced environments which instil a sense of wonder, generate curiosity and spark the imagination of children and young people’. However, despite recent interest and policy initiatives, the processes by which environments influence learning remain ‘under-researched’ (Engelen et al., Reference Engelen, Bundy, Naughton, Simpson, Bauman, Ragen and Van der Ploeg2013, p. 324) and constitute a ‘significant blind spot’ (Rickinson et al., Reference Rickinson, Dillon, Teamey, Morris, Choi, Saunders and Benefield2004, p. 8) in the literature.

This doctoral thesis is a response to evidence that childhood experiences of nature influence learning and wellbeing. It reports on primary school children's self-chosen recess and lunchtime activities in a naturalised outer-suburban school that was conceived, developed, and maintained as an educational resource. With a synthesis of Gibsonian (Reference Gibson1979, Reference Gibson, Pick, Van den Broek and Knill1992) and neo-Vygotskian (Reference Vygotsky, Cole, John-Steiner, Scribner and Souberman1934/Reference Vygotsky, Cole, John-Steiner, Scribner and Souberman1978, Reference Vygotsky2004) psychology as its theoretical framework, the research uses process tracing methodology (George & Bennett, Reference George2005) to identify that environments influence learning at three levels. First, materiality influences what learners perceive and assimilate. For example, when playing with sticks, children may notice the basic operation of levers. Second, perceiving the meanings of environmental artefacts and places mediates (Miller, Reference Miller2011) higher order learning. For example, when children discover four sticks arranged as a rectangle, perceiving the rectangle potentially mediates the concept of enclosure as understood by the person who created the rectangle. Third, by participating in activities that add layers of meaning to natural and non-prescriptive materials, children may attend to the meanings imbued in places, artefacts, and actions, thereby expanding their understandings of and capacity to influence those elements.

Grounds for Learning sheds light on how naturalised environments influence the processes of children's learning. In so doing, the thesis challenges researchers, educators and designers to reconceptualise outdoor environments as places where:

  1. (a) learners socially exchange, perceive, experiment with and adapt information;

  2. (b) activities and perceptions mediate higher-level learning;

  3. (c) participation in world-making activities scaffolds individual and collective transformations of established norms and practices.

Author Biography

Paul is an educator with 30 years’ experience in settings ranging from early years to tertiary. As ecoliteracy teacher at Galilee Catholic School, Aldinga (2007–2015), he led the formation and development of outdoor learning environments, curriculum, and pedagogies. Paul writes, presents, and consults on learning environment design and pedagogy, and his work has received awards from Flinders University Faculty of Science and Engineering, South Australian Early Childhood Organisation, and the Royal Geographical Society of South Australia. Currently Paul is curriculum coordinator at Arbury Park Outdoor School. Email: .

References

References

Australian Children's Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA). (2013). Guide to the National Standard. Retrieved from http://files.acecqa.gov.au/files/National-Quality-Framework-Resources-Kit/NQF03-Guide-to-NQS-130902.pdf Google Scholar
Engelen, L., Bundy, A.C., Naughton, G., Simpson, J.M., Bauman, A., Ragen, J., Van der Ploeg, H.P. (2013). Increasing physical activity in young primary school children — It's child's play: A cluster randomised controlled trial. Preventive Medicine, 56, 319325.Google Scholar
George, A.L., & Bennett (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, J.J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gibson, E.J. (1992). How to think about perceptual learning: Twenty-five years later. In Pick, H.L., Van den Broek, P., & Knill, D.C. (Eds.), Cognition: Conceptual and methodological issues (pp. 215237). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Miller, R. (2011). Vygotsky in perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rickinson, M., Dillon, J., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M.Y., Saunders, D., & Benefield, P. (2004). A review of research on outdoor learning. London: Field Studies Council.Google Scholar
South Australian Department for Education and Child Development. (2016). Outdoor Learning Environments Standard. Retrieved from https://www.decd.sa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net691/f/outdoor_learning_environments_standard.pdf?v=1474520411.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L.S. (1934/1978). Mind In Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S. & Souberman, E. (Eds.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L.S. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42 (1), 797.Google Scholar

Publications Related to Thesis

Johnson, P. (2015). Designing learning environments. Professional Educator, 14, 2023.Google Scholar
Johnson, P. (2013). Schoolyard geographies: The influence of object-play and place-making on relationships. Review of International Geographical Education Online, 3, 7792.Google Scholar
Johnson, P. (2015). Landscaping for imagination. Challenge: The Journal of the Reggio Emilia Australia Information Exchange, 19, 1920.Google Scholar
Johnson, P. (2014). The hidden curriculum of school grounds. Challenge: The Journal of the Reggio Emilia Australia Information Exchange, 18, 11—17.Google Scholar
Johnson, P. (2013). Playing and nature: Pure and simple. Topics: Journal of the Australian Catholic Primary Principals’ Association, 23, 810.Google Scholar
Johnson, P. (2013). Playing and nature. SERUpdate, 23, 57.Google Scholar
Johnson, P. (2015). Designing learning environments. Professional Educator, 14, 2023.Google Scholar
Johnson, P. (2013). Schoolyard geographies: The influence of object-play and place-making on relationships. Review of International Geographical Education Online, 3, 7792.Google Scholar
Johnson, P. (2015). Landscaping for imagination. Challenge: The Journal of the Reggio Emilia Australia Information Exchange, 19, 1920.Google Scholar
Johnson, P. (2014). The hidden curriculum of school grounds. Challenge: The Journal of the Reggio Emilia Australia Information Exchange, 18, 11—17.Google Scholar
Johnson, P. (2013). Playing and nature: Pure and simple. Topics: Journal of the Australian Catholic Primary Principals’ Association, 23, 810.Google Scholar
Johnson, P. (2013). Playing and nature. SERUpdate, 23, 57.Google Scholar