Outdoor Learning in the Early Years

Management and Innovation

Helen Bilton

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2010
• ISBN:
  9781135281694
• Edition: 3
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Now in its third edition, Outdoor Learning in the Early Years is the complete guide to creating effective outdoor environments for young children's learning. Comprehensively revised and updated throughout, this book covers every aspect of working outdoors in the early years and fully explains the importance of outdoor play to children's development.

Key topics covered include:

• 
  
  

• how to manage and set up the outdoor area
• what children gain from being outside
• how to allow children to take managed risks
• making sense of work and play
• how outdoor provision helps children become self regulatory
• providing for both boys and girls in the outdoor environment
• research supporting the outdoor approach.

A book for practitioners at every level of their career; each chapter includes discussions and questions for continuing development that can easily be incorporated into INSET as well as training within further or higher education.

Outdoor Learning in the Early Years contains a multitude of ideas and activities for working outdoors in the early years and provides a framework within which professionals can analyse and develop their outdoor provision and environment. This book is essential reading for all EYFS and Key Stage 1 practitioners, and for trainee teachers, their tutors, and mentors.

Section 1
Putting the outside into perspective

1
The benefits of outdoor learning

Summary

Working outside can be harder than inside, one may be physically more active, regularly battling against the elements and often more alert – watchful for potential dangers. Being involved in play and constantly mindful of play possibilities can be mentally exhausting. There can then be the added pressure of the head demanding ‘results’. Overall education out of doors is physically and mentally taxing. We have to be convinced all the effort is for a good reason.

Children have to be outside because there are things they need – for example fresh air, sun and daylight. They need to learn not to be frightened of outside but to simply see it as part of life, just as water is. They can be physically more active than inside, and so can become and stay healthy. They are able to learn in an environment that is comfortable and non-threatening and learn through play and movement – both easy vehicles for learning for young children. One parent in the Brent Project, in which outdoor practice was improved, summed it up beautifully, saying: ‘my child comes home refreshed not frustrated’ (Bilton et al. 2005). ‘Frustrated’ was how the child was when the nursery ran poorly timetabled outdoor play and ‘refreshed’ was how she described him when he experienced quality outdoor play.

Children will do many things that we bid – stick tissue paper on card, complete worksheets, run around outside like headless chickens – but just because children do them does not mean they are appropriate. Children love junk food and TV, but this does not make them right for children. As Katz and Chard argue: ‘When both the normative and dynamic dimensions of development are taken into account, it seems reasonable to suggest that just because children can do something when they are young does not mean they should do it’ (1989: 18–19). We need to protect children and make sure they do what is age and stage appropriate, not that which will damage them, possibly for life. Being outside and being outside engaged in meaningful activities is appropriate for children and particularly the young child. It is not a case of needing to prove that outside is better than inside; both environments have benefits. It is a case of being aware that outside is a part of our life and benefits us physiologically, psychologically, physically, socially and so on. It is of mind and body benefit.

Discussing playtime, Pellegrini said:

A long standing criticism of school is that children’s social-affective needs have been ignored while aspects of children’s cognitive needs have been stressed … it seems to me that the role of schools is to educate good citizens. Good citizens should be friendly and cooperative as well as literate and numerate. Indeed, would school be considered successful if we had uniform literacy and numeracy but high levels of juvenile delinquency?

(1991: 234)

Outside is both an educational and a social experience. If you look back in the Introduction (Figure 0.1) at the games people played as children there was a lot of conversation and negotiation going on as well as learning. Aasen and Waters (2006) argue that learning involves both formal and informal components but the younger the child the more informal is has to be. Young children learn through ‘play, social interaction and in day-to-day activities and care situations’ (127). This can so easily be provided outside (see Figure 1.1).

It is to the benefits of being outside and being outside engaged in meaningful activities that we now look.

Figure 1.1 Easy outdoor play, Community Playthings

Children being outside

There is clear evidence that children play and exist outside less than they used to. In 1985/6, 21 per cent of 5- to10-year-olds travelled alone to school; in 2005 this figure had dropped to 6 per cent (Department for Transport 2002, 2006). In England in 1971, 80 per cent of 7- to 8-year-olds were allowed to go to school without an adult; in 1990 this figure had dropped to 9 per cent (Hillman et al. 1990). They also looked at other unaccompanied activity outside, including crossing the road, using buses, cycling on roads and going out in the dark; the data for 1990 showed children had less freedom than in 1971. Interestingly the researchers found children in Germany had more freedom in 1990 than English children.

The fear of injury or death from vehicles means parents limit children’s play outside when they are not at school. Parental fears of child abductions or harm give them another reason not to let their children out. The additive nature of technologies, such as computer games and electronic gadgets, mean unless parents actually push children out they can be stuck indoors all day. Suburban garden pride can ensure some children are denied the use of their garden, as they must not spoil it, and other children may have no access to their own private outdoor space. Ironically the car has given freedom to adults but less to children. Reliance on the car ensures children do not experience outside, with some parents dropping their child off at school without even having dressed them in a coat. Children are taken to organised activities – football, ballet, gymnastics – where previously they would have organised their own games or taken themselves. For others, particularly teenagers, coats are seen as ‘uncool’ and they learn to dislike outside because they get cold very quickly. Some children are forced inside by being banned from using outside by intolerant adults arguing children are noisy or a nuisance (Children’s Play Council 2003). Some children can become so anxious about all the dangers adults have suggested are out there that they choose not to play out as it is associated with danger (Thomas and Thompson 2004, Dillon et al. 2006). What all this evidence tells us is that children are existing less outside than they used to and that some children are building up an antithesis to outside.

A thorough research programme which gathered data using diaries, questionnaires, activity monitors and GPS monitors looked into children’s (8- to 11-year-olds) independent movement in the local area (Mackett et al. 2007). The research found that:

• boys were allowed to participate more in travel activities than girls, except going to organised activities

• those who were allowed out without an adult actually visited more places than those who were not allowed out

• of those allowed out without an adult two-thirds spent more than 3 hours outdoors at the weekend and slightly under half spent this amount of time outdoors during the week

• those allowed out without an adult were more active

• those allowed out without an adult were more likely to go to a friend’s house

• when walking without an adult children moved slower than when with an adult, but boys used more calories even though walking more slowly because they made random, angular and sometimes rapid movements, that is they walked this way and that, messing about play fighting, etc.

• girls moved the slowest when walking with other children and without an adult, possibly because they tend to chat more than boys.

Activities such as walking to school without an adult have benefits, some of which we may never have considered, including socialisation, higher levels of activity and visiting a greater range of places and people. The walking to school research indicates the importance of close study of children. We could assume children just walk to and from school and there is nothing in it. But the research suggests that ‘children do behave differently at a microscale’ (Mackett et al. 2007: 11), that children walk differently to and from school and that boys and girls walk differently from each other. Children make more turning movements when going to school than when coming home, probably because they are more tired at night and boys dance around more than girls, possibly because they tend to be more active and interested in play fighting. The upshot of less walking without an adult to school is that children are being less active and have fewer opportunities to be with friends, fewer chances to socialise and fewer opportunities to widen their horizons visiting various new places. Although we are dealing with younger children, the implications of this research are that children do behave differently and in very specific ways dependent on the environment and we have to watch and not assume. It also suggests we need to ensure children do get outside as much as possible as they are having fewer opportunities when away from adults.

Environmental influence

The ‘environment’ in which we find ourselves can impact on us differently. Environment means any space-room, corridor, forest, field, street, etc. For example going underground on the London underground is experiencing a different environment, but some of us like it, some of us do not. Ask any group and there will be some who enjoy the brilliance of the underground system of getting you from point a to point b, the hustle and bustle, the variety of people. Others will describe the fear it instills, the hatred of being cooped up, of being in close proximity to others. This is one environment, but it impacts on people differently. Likewise being in the outdoor area can impact on children differently, they can behave differently and do different things and sometimes an environment can have a greater impact on some children more than others.

We could say that children do not need to go out, but if we look to the research of Blakemore and Frith (2005) in their addictive book The Learning Brain, Lessons for Education, their evidence strongly suggests that you cannot deny an environment to children. This book looks at how and when the brain learns and considers the implications of this scientific research for educational policy and practice. They argue that:

• there is both nurture and nature and both contribute to the making of the person

• ‘deprived’ environments are never good for the brain

• there is ‘no evidence that hothousing is beneficial to brain development’ (35)

• there are sensitive periods of learning, although ‘missed opportunities can to some extent be reversed’ (36).

What this indicates in terms of activity out of doors is that children need a full range of experiences and out of doors is a part of being human and should be a part of their experience; if we deny children experience outside then we are offering a ‘deprived’ environment. Allowing children to play does not mean they are going to fail and in fact stuffing them with facts and skills at a young age is not going to help them. There are periods when children need particular approaches, as Trevarthen (1994) indicates, curiosity is something which needs to be stimulated at around age 4. We need to ensure we are approaching children in a way that is developmentally appropriate. Finally, outside offers another place to observe children and pick up on possible difficulties, particularly visual and auditory; as the authors indicate, the sooner we pick up on problems children face the quicker remedial action can be put into place and recovery can occur.

As can be seen in Chapter 3, outside has always been viewed as a restorative environment. ‘Monasteries once had healing gardens,’ (Bird 2009: 22), rich people had fabulous gardens to walk in, horses to ride. The seaside became a place of rejuvenation; a 1930s railway poster advertised ‘Skegness, it’s so bracing’. In late Victorian times the availability of mass cheap transport and the increase in free time enabled the better-off working classes and lower middle classes to spend a day at the seaside to get away from the unhealthy conditions of the city. Parks were created to become the lungs of the cities:

Victoria Park in the East End of London was created not for environmental reasons, but after the Registrar for Births, Marriages and Deaths noted the death rate in Bethnal Green was much higher than elsewhere due to overcrowding, unsanitary conditions and polluted air.

(Bird 2009: 22)

Victoria Park was built in 1850. A walk on Hampstead Heath was a place Londoners escaped to from the factories and slums (Martin 1974: 62). The sea, springs and spas attracted people and still attract people for their restorative features. Outside is good for us. Bird (2009: 22) discusses the powerful effect of the natural environments:

Children become less hyperactive, can concentrate better and play more independently with greater balance. They develop lifelong ability to connect with nature but only if they are allowed to play freely in streams and woods before the age of 12. After this the effect rapidly diminishes.

OUTSIDE	INSIDE
‘Look at me’	‘Look at what I have made’
Environment of change	Stable environment
Freer and less controlled	Controlled
Interaction different
Open	Encompassing

Figure 1.2 Differences between inside and outside

Source: Stephenson (2002)

Stephenson (2002), looking into the relationship between indoors and out in one setting in New Zealand, describes four major differences as listed in Figure 1.2. Looking to the detail of the differences, they may not be the same as seen in this country, but what is significant is that children and adults saw there were differences and behaved differently in each space. So outside, children required something different from the adult, to inside. Outside children drew adults’ attention to what they were physically doing, but inside children wanted adults to look at what they made. Outside children were more involved in longer-term projects such as building in the sand, they were more physically active and involved in physical play. Stephenson also noted an age difference with younger children using more fixed equipment and older children more on the move. Outside was a space of change in terms of ‘temperature, light, movement, colour, smell, texture’ (2002: 31) and so children were more exposed. She found there was more change occurring outside than in, but staff felt this was the right balance, with inside being a more constant environment for children. Inside had more routines than outside, and rules were more relaxed outside than in, loud noise was acceptable out but not in. Inside was seen as a space where there were specific outcomes such as in a puzzle, but outside there w...

Table of contents

• Contents
• List of figures
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• Section 1 Putting the outside into perspective
• Section 2 Making it work
• Section 3 Making changes
• Section 4 Further information
• Bibliography
• Index