A 21 Century Pedagogy Approach to Environmental Education in the Early Years

IJRES 5 (2018) 77-90 ISSN 2059-1977

A 21st Century pedagogy approach to environmental education in the early years

Janice Deans* and Harriet Deans

The University of Melbourne, Early Learning Centre, 40 Clarke Street, Abbotsford Victoria 3067, Australia.

Article History ABSTRACT Received 17 May, 2018 In early childhood education there is growing interest in curriculum that Received in revised form 01 recognizes and values environmental education as a prominent area of study for June, 2018 Accepted 05 June, 2018 young children. There is also interest in approaches to teaching and learning st that integrate the principles of 21 Century Pedagogy, in particular the Keywords: recognition of the social construction of knowledge, real-life experiences and the Childhood education, role of the intentional and purposeful teacher to stimulate collaboration, critical Critical thinking, thinking, creativity and communication. This paper reports on a qualitative case Learning, study that investigated a ‘Learning in Nature Program (LNP)’ designed for 4-year- Pedagogy. old children and its impact on their learning. Diverse data were collected, including teacher’s documentation, children’s drawing-tellings and ‘See, Think, Wonder’ thinking routines and photographs. The analysis uncovered the nature of the program, shedding light on the centrality of the intentional teacher in planning, implementing and evaluating a program that enabled experiential learning in the local natural environment. The findings revealed that the LNP stimulated deep engagement with the natural world and supported children’s creative and critical thinking processes. As such, the value of an ecocentric curriculum was identified as highly effective in equipping young children with Article Type: the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values necessary for the development of a Full Length Research Article respectful and sustainable relationship with the earth. ©2018 BluePen Journals Ltd. All rights reserved

INTRODUCTION

In the 21st century humanity is challenged to co-exist for the future, calling for a paradigm shift in thinking about within the boundaries of the earth‟s natural systems. At how young children can be supported to be more this time, it is widely understood that many of the earth‟s environmentally connected, sensitive and in turn environments, cycles and processes have been severely responsible. altered by human activity (Glaser et al., 2012) and the As way of a response to this call, Australian national relationship humans have with the earth is considered by and state early childhood curriculum guidelines (DEEWR, many to be unsustainable (Davis, 2015; Taylor, 2017; 2009; DEECD, 2009; DET, 2016) have endorsed Whitehouse, 2012). There is also evidence that 21st environmental education (EE) as a key priority. The Century children are experiencing a significant recommendation is that learning in, about, for and from disconnect with nature, which is impacting on their overall the environment (Palmer, 1998) is integrated into health and well-being (Louv, 2005; Sobel, 1996). This mainstream curriculum. For early childhood education identified increasing divide between young children and (ECE), this means transforming teaching and learning their relationship with the natural world beckons change practices to create an „ecocentric curriculum‟ where the emphasis is placed on supporting children to develop a closer human-environment relationship. To this end, nature-based preschools (Elliot, 2008; Elliott and *Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]. Chancellor, 2014; Knight, 2011; O‟Brien, 2009; Warden,

Int. J. Res. Environ. Stud. 78

2010b) have grown in popularity, with evidence development of eco-sensitive critical thinking skills which highlighting that such programs are needed to heal the support children‟s capacity for independent decision broken bond between children and nature. These making, questioning and problem-solving. programs, which are inspired by a belief in natural spaces Scott (2015) notes that the successful acquisition of and materials as being stimuli for creativity and knowledge occurs through “authentic real-world contexts” inventiveness, mostly advocate for open-ended, (p. 2), where solving problems, reflecting on new content unstructured immersion of children in the environment. and integrating information with existing skills and As noted by Davis (2015) “Play experiences in nature knowledge, is of high priority. Hence, a natural synergy provide the opportunity for diverse activities that between EE and 21st Century Pedagogy is uncovered, challenge, engage, inspire and provoke” (p. 45), hence with a key element of both acknowledging the powerful environmental education provides foundational expe- role that socio-cultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978; Rogoff, riences for children to make strong authentic connections 1994) plays in the teaching and learning process. Within with the earth. this dyad, teachers have a critical role to play in EE in the early years encompasses raising awareness, equipping young children to address environmental acquiring values, knowledge and skills, and engagement issues that will affect their lives now and into the future by in both formal and informal interrelated processes which engaging them in collaborative learning, communication, lead to a deeper understanding of the natural world hands on participation, higher-order thinking, (Davis and Elliot, 2014; Davis, 2015; Palmer, 1998). It independent investigation and teamwork (Elliott, 2015; also incorporates the notion of collectively involving Scott, 2015). children and teachers in the identification of environmental issues by focusing on care and concern for the environment and taking action for a sustainable future. MATERIALS AND METHODS This draws into relief the value of EE in supporting young children‟s developing agency, especially in relation to This paper reports on an investigation into a unique EE forming and holding views about human-environment program known as the „LNP‟, which was developed in interactions and identifying and enacting responses to response to the educational imperatives outlined thus far. environmental issues. The research was designed with an evaluative purpose in EE represents a holistic opportunity for children‟s mind, particularly in relation to understanding the design learning with many outcomes including critical thinking and scope what constitutes an effective EE program and which is facilitated through a range of processes that its potential to connect children to the natural world. It include reflective observation, focused concentration, was recognized that the group of children and their sorting, classifying, experimenting, describing, recording, teachers participating in the research created a distinctive encoding and building connections. Also, individual and case study for qualitative research. There is agreement in collaborative creative processing unfolds in an environ- the research literature (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000; ment where open-ended play provokes inquiry and Neuman, 2006; Yin, 2003) that taking a case study exploration, self-reliance and responsibility to others and approach enables researchers to undertake an investi- the environment. It is here that EE and the notion of 21st gation over time and to design, implement, interpret and Century Pedagogy merge, prompting teachers to think report on research that is unique. about what to teach, how to teach and how to assess learning in the natural environment. 21st Century Pedagogy is based on principles that The participants and the context include personalization, participation and productivity (McLoughlin and Lee, 2008). It also places emphasis on The participants included six early childhood teachers the „4Cs‟, which include collaboration, critical thinking, and twenty-nine 4-year-old children attending a long day creativity and communication (Scott, 2015, p. 5). These preschool in inner-city Melbourne, Australia. The early skills and abilities are recognized for the part they play in childhood centre was located close to the city of motivating learners to engage in inquiries that inspire Melbourne‟s iconic Yarra River, extensive parkland, an curiosity, meet individual needs and interests and enable historic and architecturally significant convent precinct active, independent participation. For young children, EE and a working children‟s farm. The LNP was undertaken provides a platform for experiential hands-on learning as part of the mainstream program and was offered on which links directly to the principles of 21st Century one morning per week 9:30–11.30 am regardless of Pedagogy. By being provided with opportunities to learn weather conditions, for 21 weeks (over three school in open-ended natural environments young children terms). Prior to departure the children and teachers met expand their understandings of the human-nature in the classroom to discuss the LNP location, learning relationship and human-place bonding (Ernst and intentions for the day and matters of safety including a Theimer, 2011). This promotes the establishment and review of risk assessment documentation and first aid

Deans and Deans 79

Figure 1. Child Consent.

box. The children independently packed their backpacks 2000). (spare clothing, snack food, water bottle) and found partners for the walk. The walk to the LNP location varied in distance, from approximately 1 to 4 km (return) per Ethical considerations session, with the children managing their backpacks independently. Resources such as clip boards, pens, Consistent with formal research protocol, ethics approval paper, clip boards, ipads, magnifying glasses, binoculars, was sought from the affiliated university (MGSE, HEAG, hand wipes and small tools were loaded in an all-terrain Id. 1646280). Parents/guardians of the children and the trolley that was pushed by teachers and children. teachers were provided with detailed plain language One of the teachers was also one of the researchers statements that fully described the LNP and the research and as such the research was categorized within the process. This document ensured that informed consent practitioner research domain where teachers have an was obtained from all participants. opportunity, through research processes, to understand At the outset of the study the research ethos was more fully the multi-layered conditions under which they carefully considered to reflect the principles presented in practice and the impact of their practice (Kemmis, 2009). the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child There has been much written about the value of (UNCRC) (1989) and the powerful ideas emerging from practitioner research (Clarke and Erickson, 2003; Mills, the new sociology of childhood that recognize “children‟s 2003; Stremmel, 2002) with findings indicating that there agency and competency and the primacy of children‟s are many benefits for the teacher including: lived experience” (Smith, 2007, p. 1). Boileau (2013) notes that children‟s voices are rarely  An increased commitment to developing and heard in research that matters to them. Therefore, in line understanding teaching practice; with UNCRC Article 12 [United Nations Convention of the  Keeping up to date with contemporary research Rights of the Child (UNCRC), 1989] which recognizes the literature; right of children to be heard and consulted on all matters  The development of analytical skills that enable critical that affect them, the participating children were also given reflection on personal values and beliefs as they relate an opportunity to give formal consent (Conroy and to teaching practice; Harcourt, 2009) by completing a: „Would you like to draw  An increased capacity to reason, deliberate and make and talk with your teachers about the Learning in Nature ethical-practical judgments; Program? Would you like to be photographed by your  Becoming more open to their work as a professional teachers while you are playing during the Learning in and finally providing validation of the professional Nature Program?‟ (Figure 1). It was made clear to the contribution of the individual (Kemmis and McTaggart, children that non-participation was also a choice. The

Int. J. Res. Environ. Stud. 80

consent form was discussed in a group time with the verbatim child narratives. As inter-coder reliability is a teachers explaining the research to the children and critical component of any content analysis, three making time to respond to any questions or comments independent coders undertook the task of trawling that the children had. Such an approach responds to through the data. This firstly involved a broad sweep of rights-based literature (Cameron, 2005; Mayall, 2000a, b) the entire collection with a view to uncovering the main that proposes that children are provided with information categories and themes that were representative of the about research in which they might participate and give entire sample. Secondly, an additional content analysis individual consent. was undertaken of individual children‟s drawing-tellings, to identify how children were describing their experience. The thinking routine data (n=60) was analysed with a Data collection view to identifying categories and themes that were representative of the entire selection. Finally, the photos As qualitative data analysis is essentially about detection provided a memory store of children‟s engagement in the (Ritchie and Spencer, 2002) a number of data sources various aspects of the program. The analysis is were selected to not only foster authentic involvement of diagrammed in Figure 2. the children in the research but to ensure that the complete data set would ensure that the voices of the children were located centrally in the research and also RESULTS AND DISCUSSION support a comprehensive and triangulated analysis (O'Donoghue and Punch, 2003). The range of data Theory driven curriculum planning collection methods included: The teacher documentation evidenced comprehensive  Teacher program plans and evaluations; theory driven planning both on a macro and micro level.  Children‟s drawing-tellings (Wright, 2007a, b) (n= 240), Overarching principles developed by the teachers prior to which were completed during the LNP with the children the commencement of the program, referenced an image being asked to draw on A4 paper, something they of the child as strong and capable and well equipped to found interesting during the LNP. The teachers assess and manage risks in the natural environment recorded the individual children‟s verbatim responses (Warden, 2010a). Also, ecocentric sensitive values and at the completion of the drawing; environmentally oriented knowledge and skills, including  „See, Think, Wonder‟ thinking routines (Ritchhart et al., placing Australian Indigenous perspectives centrally in 2011) (n=60) which were completed three times the program were identified. The notion of learning in, throughout the course of the program; about, for and from the environment (Palmer, 1998) as a  Digital photographs recording highlights of the program. community of learners (Rogoff, 1994) was articulated under the banner of helping children to build respectful, caring, empathetic attitudes to the natural world. Finally, Analysis a range of long-term goals linked to theoretical frameworks were acknowledged as integral to the As noted by Ritchie and Spencer (2002), qualitative data ecocentric pedagogical platform. These included for the analysis involves integrated, woven and overlapping children to: processes of “defining, categorizing, theorizing, explaining, exploring and mapping the data” (p. 305). As  Develop an understanding of the significance and such, data were systematically filed with all sources being importance of the local natural environment for the subjected to an ongoing content analysis. In order to traditional owners of the land, the Wurundjeri people; ensure methodological congruence between the quali-  Engage in experiential, hands-on, open-ended, tative research tradition and a detailed and rigorous discovery learning (Dewey, 1938; Bruner, 1966) and understanding of the design and scope of the LNP and play in a wide range of environments, such as the children‟s experience of learning in nature, the parkland, bushland, long grass, river banks, fallen logs research drew on the analytical approaches of grounded and leafy treed spaces; theory. The aim was for the researchers to become over  Actively participate in multi-disciplinary (mathematics, time more and more immersed in the data and develop, literacy, science, humanities, the arts, information and through open and selective coding (Creswell, 2003; communication technologies) learning focusing on Neuman, 2006), increasingly richer concepts and models linking knowledge schemas (Splitter and Sharp, 1995; of the nature of the program and what learning was Waller, 2007) and supporting individual interests and evident (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000). habits of mind (Costa and Kallick, 2000); The analysis of children‟s drawing-tellings (n=290)  Engage in individual and collaborative focused aimed to classify both the graphic content and the observation, problem solving, decision-making and

Deans and Deans 81

Qualitative Data

Teacher Program Plans Children’s Drawing-tellings See Think Wonder Photographs and Evaluations Thinking Routines

Artefacts for Analysis

Analysis of Teaching Strategies: Content Analysis Content Analysis Content Analysis

Analysis of Children’s Macro & Micro Planning Analysis of children’s Experience Analysis of children’s thinking voices though verbatim

Learning Content

Analysis of modes of features in drawings Multimodal engagement Diagramming

Analysis informed by: Grounded Theory Classic Content Analysis Practitioner Research

Figure 2. Analytical topography.

critical reflection about points of individual and group learning of all students” (Moss, 2012, p. 5). Such interest in the environment (Davis, 2015; Scott, 2015); planning highlights a commitment to constructivism  Engage in a range of physical experiences to support where children make meaning of their world through first the building of personal strengths, confidence and hand active engagement with the environment and with resilience in negotiating challenges in the natural world, people, including a recognition that children‟s learning is including uneven terrain, steep inclines and rock mediated by prior experience and understandings and formations and logs (Kaplan and Talbot, 1983; Kahn that children construct rather than merely absorb and Kellert, 2002); knowledge (Vygotsky, 1978). Through the planning  Develop a set of values connected to nature (Kellert, documentation the role of the teacher was also brought 2002), including enacting respectful and caring into relief, with the identification that teachers learn behaviours towards the environment, following the alongside children by facilitating and scaffolding „Seven Principles of Leave No Trace‟ (Wynne and investigations and gathering information. There was also Gorman, 2015) and communicating thoughts and ideas evidence of systematic record keeping that captured the about identifying and problem solving environmental lived experience of the learning during the LNP, making it problems (Palmer, 1998; Perkins, 2014). visible and linking it back to classroom learning (Wynne and Gorman, 2015). These long-term goals align with the literature around Data also evidenced rigorous and purposeful planning what constitutes quality teaching in the 21st Century, and decision-making processes that captured the holistic especially in relation to the values that teachers hold, nature of curriculum planning through diagramming “their knowledge and their ability to develop strong skills where the teaching and learning experience was in pedagogy, content and theory in order to plan for the articulated. Figure 3 provides insight into the

Int. J. Res. Environ. Stud. 82

le t a In n r d e Learning n i m in v ss g id e g u ss o a a a l & i ls & n & g n d te C ro o n r h o u ti a & a il b p c e o c d je e v r ti a c fl ti ic g o n t e a in e n d iv r r m n n s a e l o l n v w d s a b fu a i i u ic a e l ro th l it ll s p n t r o o m th le C C p o e d r cr e u a Learning in, about, M n n p u t a m for, from & with lt t f i- u o p d r s e is a e g d c l r n a ip u i g l lt k o in n g a u i Knowledge y r C h A y t s t ill tit Sk u S d e

s f

c Child o

y s

r i

c e Ecocentric n

n u

n r

s a Reflecting m Connecting

t Teaching and e

m L

c o

t Learning C

l D Teacher y e i m D a sc o rn o n e i v o v ng e x ry a v e & T o l p lo i o la 21st Century o c p y S e in Pedagogy g E t g x o g in n p a ek vi li ta g e l c k e s o te it e n s e c m r a a y e m c n c l le n d t a ob b co d io n r ro e i n d P p & nc re n e c d io ri t n t e a a p in rv x s e e t bs d ru o n c d a t e t h io s rs n Responding cu fi Fo

Figure 3. Teacher diagramming of the ecocentric curriculum.

comprehensive, personalized and original nature of this The teacher documentation also recorded the pre- diagramming. Wiggins and McTighe (2011) note that planned structure of the teaching and learning program. students‟ learning is enhanced when teachers think This included: purposefully about curricula planning. In this research there was evidence of focused pedagogical strategizing  Whole of group recited acknowledgement of traditional using conceptual modelling diagrams as a way of owners at the meeting place prior to commencement of capturing the depth and breadth of the LNP. Such an discovery play; approach is consistent with quality teacher practice  Individual and group exploration and experimentation in where „understanding by design‟ (Wiggins and McTighe, the natural environment; 2011) guides curriculum planning and involves teachers  Individual and group interest driven collection and in decisive thinking processes that support self- classification of natural found materials; organization and the active construction of knowledge for  Participation in focused observations of and both teachers and learners. It is only when teachers have discussions on the landscape, including identification of a clear understanding of the conceptual structures in the features of the river, flora and fauna, geological which their learners operate that they can effectively lead formations; learning.  Participation in drawing-telling;

Deans and Deans 83

 Participation in „See, Think, Wonder‟ thinking routine; Collis, 1982) that was used to systematically support the and development of the children‟s thinking to move from  Use of iPads (children and teachers) to record via „surface to deep knowledge‟. For example, the learning photography interesting features of the natural goals were initially based on learning where the children environment and learning experience outcomes. had limited knowledge of the topics. The teacher‟s planning demonstrated that a systematic progression of learning was catered for with the children being involved The program in describing, performing several different skills and comparing and contrasting observations, ideas and Data uncovered the participating teachers as active opinions. The programming also provided extensive curriculum developers who responded to national and evidence of teachers adopting multiple flexible teaching state curricula (DEEWR, 2009; DEECD, 2009; DET, strategies to achieve surface to deep understanding 2016) guidelines. On a week by week basis the teachers (Hattie, 2012). These included the setting of learning purposefully planned learning objectives as a way of goals with the children themselves. Also, open-ended identifying „big ideas‟ (Perkins, 2014) or generative topics free exploration and direct instruction worked alongside that had the features expected for those teachers who each other to ensure that the children were given would be „teaching for understanding‟ (Blythe, 1997). The “multiple opportunities to learn new ideas and to engage diverse content included but was not limited to: in deliberate practice in an environment where they could concentrate on their learning (Hattie, 2012, p. 108).  Indigenous perspectives: involvement of indigenous These, along with other strategies such as open-ended elders, smoking ceremony, storytelling, song, dance, questioning, drawing-telling and thinking routines, indigenous symbols for meeting place, waterhole, established a model of teaching and learning which running water, people sitting, campfire, rain, animal aimed to place each child in the centre of the learning tracks, shelter; and to support individual learning styles (Gardner, 1983;  Trees: identification of native and non-native species, Tomlinson, 1999, 2003). characteristics, trees as habitat, trees for climbing, protection of trees;  The river: colour, flow, reflections, currents, patterns, Teachers as critically reflective nature educators river and river bank as habitat, river from mountain to the sea, waterfall, rock faces, protection of river; The extensive collection of teacher-guided child-focused group discussions and curriculum evaluations provided  Fungi: species, characteristics, growth, location, life additional evidence of a model of responsive EE teaching span; and critical reflection that was integral to the LNP. The  Seasonal changes: air temperature, sun, wind, rain, teachers systematically recorded the children‟s verbal cloud, puddles, mist, fog, rainbow; reflections and used these as a starting point for their  Animals, insects, bugs, creepy crawlies, worms: personal reflections and future planning. Schön‟s (1983) species, characteristics, habitats; term „reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action‟,  Leaves, sticks, stones, feathers, tree bark: collections, became central to the documentation process with classification, ordering, patterns, textures, mandalas; teachers continuously examining both their teaching and  Shelters and nests: sticks for building shelters and the children‟s responses to it. As noted by Schön (1983), nests, campfire, nest as habitat; such an approach is a rigorous professional process that  Environmental problem seeking and solving: litter, leads to a “legitimate form of professional knowing” (p. environmental degradation, human impact. 69). This enables teachers to shape the teaching and learning to target the development of 21st Century skills There was evidence that teachers facilitated multi- and abilities, including resilience, problem solving, disciplinary inquiries that supported an integrated decision making, creativity, reflection, self-awareness and approach to teaching and learning that was inclusive of independence. both pre-planned and spontaneous experiences that The teacher critical reflection data provided a summary were real, meaningful, creative and responsive to the of the learning experiences and teaching strategies surrounding environment. For example, the integration of particularly in relation to the important role that open- maths through the creation of a mandalas using found ended questioning played in stimulating recall, materials, science through classification of insects, identification, interpretation, drawing conclusions and engineering through shelter building, language through determining evidence within the LNP. The reflections identification and use of new vocabulary. were evidenced to support teachers to move beyond Finally, the teacher planning and evaluations were collecting and observing data, to analyse what learning evidenced to align with the SOLO Taxonomy (Biggs and occurred and how it could be changed, refined or

Int. J. Res. Environ. Stud. 84

Figure 4. Examples of children‟s drawing-tellings.

improved. This process supported the teachers to „drill identified as one of the preferred modes of expression for down‟ to uncover the social, political and ethical children in the early childhood years (Athey, 2007; implications related to teaching in the natural Docket and Perry, 2005) and as such, is recognized to environment. offer teachers an opportunity to authentically integrate the voices of children in the program and to provide insight into how children make meaning of their lived experience Teachers identifying children’s learning (Wright, 2007a, b). As language is attached to lived experience and words, in effect, are socially fashioned Drawing-tellings mediatory devices that are an end product of thinking (Vygotsky, 1978), the extensive records of children‟s As this research aimed to uncover the nature of the LNP verbal descriptions of their drawings added a further and its impact on children‟s learning, the week by week dimension to assessing children‟s learning during the data collection of children‟s drawing-tellings provided program. direct insight into the efficacy of the LNP to support each As noted earlier, the drawing-tellings (n=240) were participating child‟s` knowledge building, critical thinking subjected to a content analysis with results highlighting and environmental stewardship. Piaget (1962) children‟s learning corresponding to the generative topics commented that a child‟s art represents a replica of that had been identified in the teachers planning including his/her thinking; hence the visual record created by each the Yarra River, trees, fungi, sticks, nests, shelters, participating child captured the immediate identification seeds, water, earth elements friendships/family, imagina- and re-visitation of thoughts, feelings, images and actions tive and Indigenous perspectives. In Figure 4, evidence is experienced during the program. Drawing has also been provided to demonstrate the diversity of children‟s

Deans and Deans 85

Figure 5. Thinking routine in natural environment.

responses. the nest and I was in the grass. The analysis of the drawing-tellings also uncovered the  I drawed me and my friends walking and seeing use of complex language and a high level of scientific, rubbish along the Yarra River. We saw something we mathematical and cultural knowledge. For example: needed to put in the rubbish.  We need a grabber that collects rubbish. The rubbish is  The Wattles grow near the Yarra River. They grow in the Yarra River – I think the wind blowed it there. Wattle flowers; the leaves feel smooth. They are longer  I saw that it looks like the trees were growing down in leaves. the Yarra River. A reflection!  The Yarra River is flowing. The rain is coming and the Yarra River is going fast, fast, fast. There are circles This data provides a clear indication of the power of this from the ripples of the rain. program to stimulate deep and abstract thinking, creative  The Yarra River and the big stick. It was lying in the use of language, critical thinking, problem solving and grass. The Yarra River was flowing very slowly and I personal agency. Importantly the data demonstrates the saw reflections in the brown water. children‟s capacity to connect with the natural world and  It has branches and leaves. Because it is very old. to show care and concern for environmental protection. Some trees are not old. If we didn’t have old trees the Ernst (2015) argues that experience in the natural world possums and koalas and animals that live in the trees during the early years is important in facilitating respect would have no place to have a nest. and care for the natural environment, and it is evident  That’s the stem, those are the branches. Those are the through the many examples provided that the children blossoms and those are the little gum leaves. participating in this program developed a strong sense of  The Wattle Gum Tree. There’s leaves, it smells nice. place (Orr, 2013; MacQuarrie et al., 2015) especially It’s growing in the earth, on the Wurundjeri land. connection to the river as an iconic feature of the  A mushroom above a high tree. The mushroom was landscape. growing and it was a big mushroom and it was drinking water after the storm.  The shelter, we went inside. We were inside. We Thinking routines wanted to build a shelter and somebody went inside and we built it, with sticks, leaves and flowers. Further insight of children‟s learning whist engaged in the  A mandala. Bark, gumnuts and leaves. It’s a circle LNP was evidenced through the collection of „thinking shape. routines‟ (Ritchhart, 2012) which were undertaken in the  I was running, I was Bunjil the Eagle flying and I was in natural environment (Figure 5). Teachers engaged one-

Int. J. Res. Environ. Stud. 86

Table 1. See, Think, Wonder Thinking Routine Responses.

I see… I think… I wonder… A dry waterfall with grass growing in it. I The wind makes the ripples. Rainbow Why the Yarra River starts in Mt Baw Baw see ripples Lorikeets lives in the Mountain Ash trees The Yarra. It‟s just quiet. There are trees Gum Nut trees are around the Yarra. It‟s If the river has rubbish the creatures will high in the sky making shapes but you can‟t really see it be sick The Yarra is flowing down to the sea Fish in the water, in the fresh water Can you drink it? I think there‟s going to be a flood because Trees, green trees. The colour green remember how the clouds are filled with If it will flood – all over the city lots and lots of rain I wonder if I got a grabber if I could clean Rubbish down there on the mud The Yarra is sick because of the rubbish it Tall trees in the earth need water, helps The reflections on the other side, trees them grow bigger and bigger. Birds will be If the Yarra will shine. and the ground, steps and the rocks in the trees. Koala‟s might live in the trees It‟s going to a waterfall. The birds are If the birds don‟t like rubbish, it makes it Rubbish floating making noise dirty I can see clouds, sky and water and If the Yarra has feet. Why is the Yarra a flowers and I can see the Yarra with I think about the rubbish. muddy colour? ripples Some yukky rubbish because someone You know, the Yarra goes all the way to throwed it in there. I see a stick near the How the Yarra was made. I think it was our house. When we see the YR there is rubbish and I can see shadows of trees made by a tap and rain lots and lots of rubbish on the Yarra I can see in the water some pictures of About the pictures in the water. Sand I wish I could be big and go in the Yarra the ground. I can see rubbish it sitting because water has sand under the YR with a boat and hear all of the birds right there. Rocks and leaves and flowers Grey and green and some rocks. The Some patterns and some good sounds. trees are standing there next to it. The All of the patterns and all of those shapes If you have good luck next to the Yarra water is going around that are basically shells A mandala, sticks and leaves. I see cliffs, I just saw the Yarra. It is too dangerous to Look, look, circles. Look what is grass, trees. I see something, circles, go down to the river. The leaves have happening to the Yarra. the branches are coming out. Birds are flying, I heard the dropped. They are slippery. There is mud tall but I can‟t find a big stick noise of the birds and shoes are dirty

on-one with individual children guiding them through the problem-solving shows respect for and acknowledgement „See-Think-Wonder‟ routine as a way of capturing and of each child‟s contribution. stimulating thinking by noticing and naming (Johnston, 2004). When teachers scaffold learning in this way children are encouraged to look closely, notice details, Photographs describe, explain, make interpretations and ponder. Ritchhart et al. (2011) argue that thinking routines are Throughout the LNP, the teachers and children used an effective teaching strategy to help learners explore iPads as a visual method of data collection to document their learning more deeply and to make learning visible the learning experiences and use as a reference library for both teacher and learner. Table 1 exemplifies the after the event. In early childhood education photography breadth of responses elicited from engagement in this has become one of the main means by which teachers of teaching and learning strategy. young children capture evidence of individual and group This data highlights the centrality of thinking routines in learning in action (Fagan and Coutts, 2012; Verenikina the LNP to support children‟s knowledge and understan- and Kervin, 2011). It has been used for many years now dings, in particular their capacity to identify environmental by children themselves (Einarsdóttir, 2005) as a tool issues and concerns and to problem-solve solutions. through which they can express their perceptions of their Such an approach is in line with 21st Century teaching lived experience, share their funds of knowledge and learning where making time for focused thinking and (González et al., 2005) and have their contributions

Deans and Deans 87

Figure 6. Experiential learning in the environment.

valued by their peers and teachers. Children‟s Through the use of the iPad the teachers were able to photographs also provided a basis for further learning, capture individual children playing in a variety of exploration and discussion with individual children “being environments and to document the qualitatively different empowered to share and contribute to their peers‟ forms of play and discovery. The data evidenced children learning in a reciprocal manner, thus mutually enriching connecting with the natural world a and expressing a each other‟s learning and awareness about the world sense of wonder and curiosity about the natural world, around them” (Khoo et al., 2013, p. 17). engaging with peers in collaborative inquiries and merely In this research, the teacher‟s documentation noted just „being‟ in the environment (Figure 6). Finally, there that when the children were given the opportunity to was extensive photographic evidence to support the photograph their interests the children invested more fully efficacy and value of the LNP. Children were captured: in their learning, taking ownership and displaying personalized agency to act in the moment to contribute to  Actively participating in the LNP showing enthusiasm the documentation of the learning during the LNP. For the and curiosity for focused observations of the natural teachers the photographic records were used as a environment; memory boost for evaluation and assessment purposes.  Engaging in open-ended discovery-learning individually

Int. J. Res. Environ. Stud. 88

and with peers; a deeper awareness of the complexity of the natural  Engaging in imaginative and dramatic play individually world. and with peers; This study was context bound and not intended to  Engaging in collaborative inquiry partnerships with result in generalizations to the wider educational peers and teachers; community, nevertheless the research argues for  Demonstrating interest in living and non-living things; accessibility and transferability of the pedagogical  Engaging in dirt, mud and water play; approach investigated, with the findings having broad  Demonstrating resilience and perseverance when implications for early childhood curriculum and pedagogy challenged (for example, coping with changing weather as well as teachers professional practice. Readers are conditions, climbing trees, balancing on stepping provided with a rich case study that provides insight into stones; a unique ecocentric curriculum that responded to and  Problem solving in a variety of real life situations. was strongly influenced by a wide range of educational literature that wove together environmental education and twenty first century pedagogies to produce a unique Conclusion environmental education program for four-year old children. Robinson (2006) and Leadbeater (2010) both note that learning beyond the classroom has a powerful impact on children‟s motivation and attention, hence the major ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS recommendation from this study is to encourage teachers of young children to embrace an ecocentric curriculum This research was conducted as part of a yearlong that enables, deep, wide and rich hands on learning for Learning in Nature Program. We express deep children in open local community spaces. The notion of appreciation to the Early Learning Centre, the children the „wall-less classroom‟ challenges teachers to step out, and their parents and our colleagues. find out and help children speak out about the world in which they live. Such an approach supports children to REFERENCES invest in their learning, cultivate greater learner autonomy and reinforce their capacities for focused observation and Athey C. (2007). Extending thought in young children. A parent-teacher personal reflection. Finally, this research has added to partnership. (2nd ed.). London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Biggs J. B. & Collis K. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The the growing body of literature that has identified the SOLO taxonomy. New York, Academic Press. benefits of personalized, participatory and productive Blythe T. (1997). The teaching for understanding guide. San Francisco: learning in the real-world (McLoughlin and Lee, 2008; Jossey-Bass. Scott, 2015). It has also demonstrated that young Boileau E. Y. S. (2013). Young voices: The challenges and children readily embrace their responsibilities as opportunities that arise in early childhood environmental education research. Can. J. Environ. Educ. 18:142–154. Retrieved from environmental stewards to care and respect the earth http://cjee.lakeheadu.ca/index.php/cjee/article/view/1204/679. and willingly invest in taking action to protect and care for Bruner J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge: Harvard it. University Press. Cameron H. (2005). Asking the tough questions: A guide to ethical practices in interviewing young children. Early Child Development and Care. 175(6):597-610. RECOMMENDATIONS Clarke A. & Erickson G. (2003). Teacher inquiry: Living the research in everyday practice. London, UK: Routledge Falmer. Conroy H. & Harcourt D. (2009). Informed agreement to participate: Although this was a small-scale study undertaken in a Beginning the partnership with children in research. Early Child unique setting, the results highlight the efficacy of a Development and Care. 179(2):157-165. thoughtfully designed, implemented and evaluated EE Costa A. & Kallick B. (Eds.). (2000). Habits of mind. Victoria: Hawker program for four-year-old children. What the study has Brownlow. shown is that when teachers bring intentionality and Creswell J. W. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed method approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage purpose to their planning and use a range of focused Publications. teaching strategies, a transformational ecocentric Davis J. M. & Elliott S. (2014). Research in early childhood education curriculum can be developed and implemented to support for sustainability: International perspectives and provocations. NY: the acquisition of twenty-first century thinking skills and Routledge. Davis J. M. (2015). Young children and the environment. Early child agency. Importantly this research has demonstrated education for sustainability. (2nd ed.). Victoria, Australia: Cambridge how providing children with extensive opportunities to University Press. connect with the natural world beyond the confines of the DEECD - Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (2009). Victorian Early Years Learning and Development Framework. classroom, supports environmental stewardship and the Melbourne: Early Childhood Strategy Division, Department of Early opportunity to build an authentic relationship with nature, Childhood Development and Victorian Curriculum Authority. acquire new knowledge and understandings and develop DEEWR - Department of Education, Employment and Workplace

Deans and Deans 89

(2009). Belonging, Being & Becoming. The Early Years Learning MacQuarrie S., Naugent C. & Warden C. (2015). Learning in nature and Framework for Australia. ACT: Commonwealth Copyright Division. learning from others: nature as setting and resource for early Denzin N. K. & Lincoln Y. S. (Eds.) (2000). Handbook of qualitative childhood education. J. Advent. Educ. Outdoor Learn. 15(1):1-23. research. London: Sage Publication Inc.DET - Department of Mayall B. (2000a). The sociology of childhood in relation to children‟s Education and Training (2016). Victorian early years learning and rights. Int. J. Children‟s Rights. 8:243-259. development framework for all children from birth to eight years. Mayall B. (2000b). Conversations with children. Working with Victoria: National Education Access License for Schools (NEALS) generational issues. In: P. Christensen & A. James (Eds.), Research Copyright Act. with children. Perspectives and Practices. London: Falmer Press. Pp. Dewey J. (1938). Experience & Education. New York: Collier Books. 120-135. Dockett S. & Perry B. (2005). You need to know how to play safe: Mcloughlin C. & Lee M. J. W. (2008). The three P‟s of pedagogy for the Children‟s experiences of starting school. Contemporary Issues in networked society: personalization, participation, and productivity. Int. Early Childhood. 6(1): 4-18. J. Teach. Learn. Higher Educ. 20(1):10-27. Einarsdóttir J. (2005). Playschool in pictures: Children‟s photographs as Mills G. (2003). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher a research method. Early Childhood Development and Care. (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. 175(6):523-541. Moss J. (2012). Introducing teaching as a profession. In: R. Churchill, R. Elliot S. (2008). The outdoor play space naturally: For children birth t Ferguson, S. Godinho, N. F. Johnson, A. Keddie, W. Letts, J. five years. NSW: Pademelon Press. Mackay, M. McGill, J. Moss, M. C. Nagel, P. Nicholson, M. Vick, M. Elliott S. & Chancellor B. (2014). From forest preschool to bush kinder: (2011). Teaching: Making a difference. Milton, QLD, Australia: John An inspirational approach to preschool provision in Australia. Aust. J. Wiley and Sons. Early Childhood. 39(4):45-53. Neuman W. L. (2006). Social Research Method. Qualitative and Elliott S. (2015). Children in the natural world. In: J. Davis (Ed). Young Quantitative Approaches (6th ed.). MA: Pearson Education. Inc. children and the environment. Early education for sustainability (2nd O‟Brien L. (2009). Learning outdoors: The forest school approach. ed.). Victoria, Australia: Cambridge University press. Pp. 32-54. Education 3-13. 37(1):45-60. Ernst J. & Theimer S. (2011). Evaluating the effects of environmental O'Donoghue T. & Punch K. (2003). Qualitative educational research in education programming on connectedness to nature. Environ. Educ. action: Doing and reflecting. London: Routledge Falmer. Res. 17(5):577-598. Orr D. (2013). Place and pedagogy. NY: State University of New York Ernst J. (2015). Book review of research in early childhood education Press. for sustainability: International perspectives and provocations. Palmer J. A. (1998). Environmental education for the 21st Century. Children Youth and Environments. 25(1):162-164. Theory, practice, progress and promise. London: Routledge Falmer. Fagan T. & Coutts T. (2012). To ipad or not to ipad? Christchurch, New Perkins D. N. (2014). Future wise. Educating our children for a changing Zealand: CORE Education. Retrieved from http://www.core- world. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. ed.org/thought-leadership/research/ipad-or-not-ipad. Piaget J. (1962b). The language and thought of the child. London: Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple Routledge & Kegan Paul. intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Ritchhart R. (2012). Intellectual character: What it is, why it matters, and Glaser M., Krause G., Ratter B. M. W. & Welp M. (2012). Human-nature how to get it. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. interactions in the anthropocene. Potentials of social-ecological Ritchhart R., Church M. & Morrison K. (2011). Making thinking visible. systems analysis. Routledge: New York. How to promote engagement, understanding, and independence for González L., Moll C. & Amanti C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: all learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Theorizing practices in households, communities and classrooms. Ritchie J. & Spencer L. (2002). Qualitative data analysis for applied Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. policy research. In: A. M. Huberman, & M. B. Miles (Eds.). Qualitative Hattie J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers. NY: Routledge. researcher‟s companion. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Johnston P. H. (2004). Choice words: How our language affects Inc. Pp. 305-329. children‟s learning. Portland, ME: Stenhouse. Robinson K. (2006). How schools kill creativity (online video). TED Kahn P. H. & Kellert S. R. (2002). Children and nature: Psychological, Conference 2006. Monterey, Calif. Retrieved from sociocultural and evolutionary investigations. Cambridge, MA: MIT www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity. Press. Rogoff B. (1994). Developing understanding of the idea of communities Kaplan S. & Talbot J. F. (1983). Physiological benefits of a wilderness of learners. Mind, Culture and Activity. 1(4):209-229. experience. In: I. Altman and J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.). Behaviour and the Schön D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in natural environment. New York: Plenum. Pp. 163-203. action. New York: Basic Books. Kellert S. R. (2002). Experiencing nature: Affective, cognitive, and Scott C. L. (2015). The Futures of Learning 3: What kind of pedagogies evaluative development in children. In: P. H. Kahn, Jr. & S. R. Kellert for the 21st Century? Education research and foresight. Working (Eds.). Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural and Papers, 15. Paris: UNESCO. evolutionary investigations (pp. 117-151). Cambridge, MA, US: MIT Smith A. B. (2007). Children‟s rights and early childhood education. Press. Links to theory and advocacy. Aust. J. Early Childhood. 32(3):1-8. Kemmis S. & McTaggart R. (2000). Participatory action research. In: N. Sobel D. (1996). Beyond Ecophobia: Reclaiming the heart in nature K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.). Handbook of qualitative research education. Great Barrington, MA: Orion Society. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pp. 567-605. Splitter L. & Sharpe A. (1995). Teaching for better thinking: The Kemmis S. (2009). Action research as a practice-based practise. Educ. classroom community of inquiry, Hawthorn, VIC: Australian Council Action Res. 17(3):463-474. for Educational Research. Khoo E., Merry R., Nguyen N. H., Bennett T. & MacMillan N. (2013). Stremmel A. (2002). Teacher research: Nurturing professional and Early childhood education teachers‟ ipad supported practices in personal growth through inquiry. Young Children. 57(5):62-70. young children‟s learning and exploration. Computers in New Taylor A. (2017). Beyond stewardship: common world pedagogies for Zealand Schools: Learning, teaching, technology. 25(1-3):3-20. the anthropocene. Environ. Educ. Res. 23(10):1448-1461. Knight S. (2011). Forest schools and outdoor learning in the early years. Tomlinson C. A. (1999). The differentiated classroom: Responding to London: Sage Publications. the needs of all learners. New Jersey: Pearson Education. Leadbeater C. (2010). What next? Twenty One Ideas for 21st Century Tomlinson C. A. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to Education. Retrieved from, http://charlesleadbeater.net/wp-content/ student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically uploads/2010/01/Next2.pdf. Mindstretchers limited. Louv R. (2005). Last Child in the woods: Saving our children from Warden diverse classrooms: A review of literature. Journal for the nature deficit disorder. New York: Algonquin Books. Education of the Gifted. 27:119-45.

Int. J. Res. Environ. Stud. 90

United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) (1989). Wiggins G. & McTighe J. (2011). The Understanding by Design guide to Convention on the rights of the child. Geneva: Office of the United creating high-quality units. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights. Wright S. (2007a). Graphic-Narrative Play: Young Children's Authoring Verenikina I. & Kervin L. (2011). iPads, digital play and pre-schoolers. through Drawing and Telling. Int. J. Educ. Arts. 8:1-28. He Kupu. 2(5): 4-19. Wright S. (2007b). Young children‟s meaning-making through drawing Vygotsky L. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher and „telling‟: Analogies to filmic textual features. Aust. J. Early psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Childhood. 321(4):37-48. Waller T. (2007). The trampoline tree and the swamp monster with 18 Wynne S. & Gorman R. (Eds.). (2015). Nature pedagogy. Osborne heads: Outdoor play in the foundation stage and foundation phase. Park, WA: Association of Independent Schools of Western Australia. Education 3‐13, 35(4):393–407. Yin R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Warden C. (2010a). Nature Kindergartens and Forest Schools. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. UK:C. (2010b). Children as designers of their own space. Exchange. 192:103-104. Whitehouse H. (2012). The Anthropocene, Young Women and Education for Sustainability. Redress. 21(3):6-9.