Outdoor teaching and learning on Swedish school grounds and in the Australian bush

Emilia Fägerstam Department of social and welfare studies Linköping University, Sweden

[email protected]

Space and Place. Perspectives on outdoor teaching and learning A joint PhD between two universities 2012: Linköping University, Sweden

Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

2

Swedish school grounds One junior high school in Sweden

Students: year 7-9

the Australian bush 13 environmental education centres in Sydney

Students: year K-12

A longitudinal outdoor intervention project in Sweden •

All teachers (n=40) at a Swedish high school participated in an outdoor education course (7,5 ECTS points)



3 days, 5 half days, 6 seminars



Intervention: August-June (2009-2010)



Goal: 3-4 outdoor lessons a week (class level)

An exploratory study



Few previous studies on regular school based outdoor learning (Jordet, 2007; Mygind, 2005; Rickinson et al. 2004;Thorburn & Allison, 2010).



There is a current discussion concerning children’s possibly decreased contact with nature in Westerns urban societies (Tranter & Malone, 2007; Sandberg, 2012; Lisberg Jensen, 2011)



but not many studies on how children experience nature

Research questions

1) What are teachers experience of outdoor teaching based on a one year intervention? 2) Are there any influences on students academic performance in biology and mathematics?

3) What are teachers observations and perceptions of how urban children experience nature? 4) How can the outdoor teaching practice be understood in terms of place and space?

6

Four studies

7



Study 1: Children and young people’s experience of the natural world: teachers’ perceptions and observations



Study 2: Learning biology and mathematics outdoors: effects and attitudes in a Swedish high school context



Study 3: High school teachers’ experiences of the educational potential of outdoor teaching and learning



Study 4: Learning arithmetic outdoors in junior high school – influence on performance and self-regulating skills

Mixed methods research (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011) •

Interviews with students and teachers – thematic analyses (Boyatzis, 1998; Braun & Clarke, 2005)



Quasi-experimental studies - SOLO taxonomy (Biggs & Collins, 1992), non parametric statistical analyses

Theoretical perspective - dimensions of place •

Space – socio-cultural (Massey, 2005) and physical/spatial space



Place – insideness and belonging to a particular place (Relph, 1976)

Place as insideness and belonging •

Space is transformed into place by human experience and the bonds that people establish and the meaning they attribute to a place (Relph, 1976, Tuan, 1997)



Attachment, identity and dependence are frequently used concepts in attempts to understand human-place relationships (Lewicka, 2011)

On the other hand – Place as ”our stretched relationships with a globalised world” (Massey, 2005, p. 185) •

Place is socio-cultural and relational



There is a multitude of placeidentities and senses of place



Place is open and an ever-evolving

A theoretical frame: Place (in/about/for) and Space (physical and social)

Three dimensions of learning Society

(Illeris, 2007a, 2007b; Jarvis, 2006)

Incentive

Content

Interaction

Environment From Illeris, 2007b

Percent of lessons taught outdoors (2 of 4 teams of teachers) Mean: 4.5% - one/week 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Teachers’ general experiences after the intervention (3) Teaching mainly on the school grounds – worked well Journeys away from school rare due to e.g. lack of time, inflexible time schedules Less concern about disciplinary problems than before the intervention but a rather long transition period before students adjusted to the new learning environment

Teachers‘ experiences of the educational potential of outdoor teaching (3) Content/academic Expand and confirm school knowledge Shared episodic memories On-task communication (math/language)

Interaction/social Participation Communication/collaboration Altered relations – good climate in class

Incentive Engagement Enjoyment

Learning biology outdoors (2) •

Two year 7 and two year 8 classes



Same teacher



Year 7: Introduction to classification and evolution



Year 8: ecology



Outdoor classes: 6 lessons outdoors



Indoor classes: 2 lessons outdoors



Pre- and post questions



Interviews 6 months later

Differences in content knowledge? Year 7:

Year 8:

Describe how we try to bring order to the diversity of life to make it easier to understand

There are many different plants and animals living in a lake or in a meadow. Try to explain/describe factors that affect their interrelations

No differences in scores in the SOLO taxonomy Year 7 outdoor class included examples to their classification system more often than the indoor class ” there are different kingdoms, for example plants, animals and mushrooms” ” there are vertebrates and invertebrates” 18

Can you tell me about the course… Differences in students’ narratives 6 months later Outdoor classes

Indoor classes



Clear episodic memories



Vague memories



Narratives including course-related words and concepts in a coherent way



Course-related words and concepts expressed more randomly



Teacher-centered practice



Active participants in a scientific practice

Learning arithemtics outdoor (4) •

Year 7: 10 week course in arithemtics



Outdoor group (2 classes): 1 of 4 lessons outdoors entire year 7

• •

Indoor group (three classes): traditional classroom work



Pre-test: performance in math + motivation, self-concept, anxiety



Post-test: same after completion of the course (questionnaire also at the end of year 7)

Learning arithmetics outdoors (4) Mean difference in test score, max 30

26

Initial differences but the outdoor group increased their test scores more than the indoor group

25 24 23 Indoor

22

Outdoor

21 20 19 18 Pre test

21

Post test

Outdoor group: Initially lower scores on selfconcept and higher on anxiety. No difference in motivation

Change in intrinsic motivation 7 6,8 6,6 6,4 Indoor group

6,2

Outdoor group

6 5,8 5,6

5,4 Pre test

After 10 weeks

Mean test score in intrinsic motivation

End year 7

Interesting results but difficult to interpret Initial differences and development potential? Teacher effect? but

Despite less self-concept, lower test scores and higher anxiety, the outdoor group increased their performace more than the indoor group Outdoor maths: playful small-group learning – a contribution to the results?

Children and young people’s experience of the natural world: teachers’ perceptions and observations (1)

According to the participants could children and young people’s experience of nature be described such as Emotional: interested and engaged but often uncomfortable and afraid Rare: school often provides the only opportunity Vicarious: decontextualized understanding – media provides knowledge rather than one’s own experiences

What were the educational potentials with nature encounters? •

Ecological understanding as a component in developing a place idenity



Place attachment as a component in environmental concern

Space Content

Social

Incentive

Place

• On-task communication • Shared experiences • Expand and confirm texbook

• Collaboration • Participation • Altered relations

• Good climate in class • Engagement • Enjoyment

Place identity

Place attachment

Conclusions

27



Several educational potentials with regular school-based outdoor learning in high school but long transition period



Social and emotional dimensions of learning rationale rather than academic. Academic performance equally good or enhanced



Despite initial concern – outdoor learning on the school ground worked generally well



Nature encounters as a way to implement place attachment and environmental concern contradict with urban children’s experience of nature as unfamiliar and even scary



”Space” rather than ”place” rationale behind regular outdoor learning

References • • • • • • •

• •

• •

28

Biggs, J., & Collins, K. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: the SOLO taxonomy. New York: Academic Press. Boyatzis, R. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77101. Illeris, K. (2007a). How we learn. Learning and non-learning in school and beyond. London: Routledge Illersi, K. (2007b). What do we actually mean by experiential learning? Human Resource Development Review, 6(1), 84-95. Jarvis, P. (2006). Towards a comprehensive theory of human learning. London: Routledge. Jordet, A. (2007). Naermiljoet som klasserom - en undersokelse om uteskolens didaktikk i et danningsteoretiskt og erfaringspedagogisk perspektiv. [The local environment as a classroom – a study of the pedagogy of outdoor school from the perspective of education theory and experience-based learning]. Doctoral dissertation. Department of Education. Oslo: Oslo University. Lewicka, M. (2011). Place attachment: how far have we come in the last 40 years? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 207-230. Lisberg Jensen, E. (2011). Humanekologiska perspektiv på barns naturkontakt. [Human-ecological perspectives on children’s contact with nature]. In (Eds.). Mårtensson, F., Lisberg Jensen, E., Söderström, M., Öhman, J. (2011). Den nyttiga utevistelsen? Forskningsperspektiv på naturkontaktens betydelse för barns hälsa och miljöengagemang. [Outdoor activities. Research-based perspectives on children’s health and environmental concern]. Bromma: Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Massey, D. (2005). For space. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mygind, E. (2005). (Ed.). Udeundervisning i folkeskolen. [Outdoor teaching in compulsory school]. (Ed.). Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanums Forlag.

• • •





29

Rickinson, M., Dillon, J., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M-Y., Sanders, D., & Benefield, P. (2004). A review of research on outdoor learning. Shrewsbury, UK: Field Studies Council/National Foundation for Educational Research. Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion. Sandberg, M. (2012). “De är inte ute så mycket” Den bostadsnära naturkontaktens betydelse och utrymme i storstadsbarns vardagsliv. [’They are not outdoors that much’. Nature close to home – its meaning and place in the everyday lives of urban children].Doctoral dissertation. Department of Human and Economic Geography. Göteborg: University of Gothenburg. Thorburn, M., & Allison, P. (2010). Are we ready to go outdoors now? The prospects for outdoor education during a period of curriculum renewal in Scotland. The Curriculum Journal, 21(1), 97-Tranter, P., & Malone, K. (2008). Out of bounds. Insights from Australian children to support sustainable cities. Encounter: Education for Meaning and Social Justice, 21(4), 20-26. Tuan, Y.-F. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minnesota: The University of Minnesota Press.

www.liu.se