Advertisement

Curriculum Perspectives

, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp 175–180 | Cite as

Affordances in nature: Australian primary school children identify learning opportunities

  • Vinathe Sharma-Brymer
  • Keith Davids
  • Eric Brymer
  • Derek Bland
Point and counterpoint

Introduction

Young children learn best through investigation, exploration, imagination, creativity and personal experiences (Bruner 1997; Australian Curriculum 2018; Robinson and Azzam 2009; Vygotsky 2004). However, traditional formal education focuses more on curricula that emphasise numeracy and literacy skills and standardised testing, marginalising aspects of learner’s overall socio-emotional health, expressions of creativity and learning from personal experiences. The result is that traditional education system often fails to deliver on both, especially compromising on children’s learning in the outdoor environment and play which are the most prominent areas for reflection and inquiry in childhood (Gill 2007; Gray 2013). Researchers have suggested that children should participate in school and curriculum-related matters and in co-designing their own learning processes and contents together with educators (Bahou 2011; Birch et al. 2017; Flutter and Rudduck 2004; Thornberg and...

References

  1. Australian Curriculum. (2018). Primary curriculum. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/resources/primary-curriculum. Accessed 7 June 2018.
  2. Bahou, L. (2011). Rethinking the challenges and possibilities of student voice and agency. Educate, 1, 2–14.Google Scholar
  3. Baroutsis, A., McGregor, G., & Mills, M. (2016). Pedagogic voice: student voice in teaching and engagement pedagogies. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 24(1), 123–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bentsen, P., & Jensen, F. S. (2012). The nature of udeskole: outdoor learning theory and practice in Danish schools. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 12(3), 199–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birch, J., Parnell, R., Patsarika, M., & Šorn, M. (2017). Creativity, play and transgression: children transforming spatial design. CoDesign, 13(4), 245–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Birkett D. (2011). The school I'd like: here is what you wanted. The Guardian, UK. From http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/may/03/school-iwould-like. Accessed 5 April 2011.
  7. Bland, D., & Sharma-Brymer, V. (2012). Imagination in school children’s choice of their learning environment: an Australian study. International Journal of Educational Research, 56, 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruner, J. (1997). Celebrating divergence: Piaget and Vygotsky. Human Development, 40, 63–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brymer, E., & Davids, K. (2014). Experiential learning as a constraints-led process: an ecological dynamics perspective. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 14(2), 103–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brymer, E., Davids, K., & Mallabon, E. (2014). Understanding the psychological health and well-being benefits of physical activity in nature: an ecological dynamics analysis. Journal of Ecopsychology, 6(3), 189–197.Google Scholar
  11. Burke, C., & Grosvenor, I. (2003). The school I’d like: Children and young people’s reflections on an education for the 21st century. London: RoutledgeFalmer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davids, K., Araujo, D., & Brymer, E. (2016). Designing affordances for physical activity: an ecological dynamics perspective. Sports Medicine, 46(7), 933–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy in education. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  14. Doherty, L. (2005). The school I’d like. News and Features, Sydney Morning Herald, Australia.Google Scholar
  15. Eden, S., & Barratt, P. (2010). Outdoors versus indoors? Angling ponds, climbing walls and changing expectations of environmental leisure. Area, 42(4), 487–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fiskum, A., & Jacobsen, K. (2013). Outdoor education gives fewer demands for action regulation and an increased variability of affordances. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 13(1), 76–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Flutter, J., & Rudduck, J. (2004). Consulting pupils: What's in it for schools? London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ghaziani, R. (2010). School design: researching children’s views. Childhoods Today, 4(1), 1–30.Google Scholar
  19. Gibson, J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. Gill, T. (2007). No fear: Growing up in a risk averse society. London: CalousteGulbenkian Foundation.Google Scholar
  21. Gray, P. (2013). Play as preparation for learning and life: an interview with Peter Gray. American Journal of Play, 5(3), 271–292.Google Scholar
  22. Jenkins, M. (2013). School design: how important are buildings to learning? The Guardian, UK. From http://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2013/mar/22/school-design-architecture-buildings-learning-live-chat. Accessed 6 March 2015.
  23. Lloyd, A., Truong, S., & Gray, T. (2018). Place-based outdoor learning: more than a drag and drop approach. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 21(1), 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morse, L., & Allensworth, D. (2015). Placing students at the centre: the whole school, whole community, whole child model. The Journal of School Health, 85, 785–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Muderrisoglu, H., & Gultekin, P. (2013). Understanding the children’s perception and preferences on nature-based outdoor landscape. Indoor and Built Environment, 24(3), 340–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rigolon, A. (2011). A space with meaning: children’s involvement in participatory design processes. Design Principles and Practices, 5(2), 151–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Robinson, K., & Azzam, A. M. (2009). Why creativity now? Educational Leadership, 67(1), 22–26.Google Scholar
  28. Rudduck, J., & Fielding, M. (2006). Student voice and the perils of popularity. Educational Review, 58(2), 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (2000). Value priorities and subjective wellbeing: direct and congruity effects. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 177–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sandseter, E. B. H. (2009). Affordances for risky play in preschool: the importance of features in the play environment. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36, 439–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sharma-Brymer, V., & Bland, D. (2016). Bringing nature to schools to promote children’s physical activity. Sports Medicine, 46(7), 955–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Storli, R., & Hagen, T. L. (2010). Affordances in outdoor environments and children's physical active play in pre-school. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 18(4), 445–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Strong-Wilson, T., & Ellis, J. (2007). Children and place: Reggio Emilia's environment as third teacher. Theory Into Practice, 46(1), 40–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Thomas, H. (2010). Learning spaces, learning environments and the dis‘placement’ of learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 502–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thornberg, T., & Elvstrand, H. (2012). Children's experiences of democracy, participation, and trust in school. International Journal of Educational Research, 53, 44–54. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vygotsky, L. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. (ME Sharpe, trans.). Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42(1), 7–97 (Original work published 1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Waite, S., & Goodenough, A. (2018). What is different about Forest School? Creating a space for an alternative pedagogy in England. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 21(1), 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wall, G. (2016). The impact of physical design on student outcomes. Report by the Ministry of Education, New Zealand. From http://www.educationcounts.edcentre.govt.nz. Accessed 1 July 2017.
  39. Warren, W. (2006). The dynamics of perception and action. Psychological Review, 113, 358–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Withagen, R., De Poel, H. J., Araújo, D., & Pepping, G. (2012). Affordances can invite behaviour: reconsidering the relationship between affordances and agency. New Ideas in Psychology, 30(2), 250–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Australian Curriculum Studies Association 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vinathe Sharma-Brymer
    • 1
  • Keith Davids
    • 2
  • Eric Brymer
    • 3
  • Derek Bland
    • 4
  1. 1.BrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.The Centre for Sports Engineering Research Faculty of Health & WellbeingSheffield Hallam UniversitySheffieldUK
  3. 3.Institute for Sport, Physical Activity & LeisureLeeds Beckett UniversityLeedsUK
  4. 4.Faculty of EducationQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations