Making the invisible visible: Early years practitioners’ reflections on the pedagogical affordances of learning out-of-doors

Despite the extensively researched benefits of outdoor learning, educators often report lack of knowledge, confidence and institutional support in developing place-responsive pedagogies. This paper discusses the findings of a grassroots, Participatory Action Research methodology we developed with pedagogues from five nurseries to generate knowledge about ways of supporting children’s learning outdoors. Drawing on Gibson’s theory of affordances and Bernstein’s invisible pedagogies, we developed a synthesised lens through which early years practitioners studied the place-emergent, fluid and often implicit and invisible interactions they engaged in with children. We invited practitioners to capture these interactions using GoPro cameras, then watch themselves in-action and reflect on the environmental affordances they perceived and pedagogies they employed. Their reflections were discussed in focus groups. Participants theorised about their pedagogical intentions, actions and interactions, identified some challenges and generated knowledge about ways of overcoming these.

Context and aims

The pedagogical benefits of learning outdoors are far reaching (Green and Rayner 2020) and widely recognised nationally and internationally (Prince and Diggory 2023). It is seen as an integral part of the curriculum in several countries (Jucker and von Au 2022; Kiviranta et al. 2023) and as a mandatory area of learning in the Early Years Foundation Stage (DfE 2023) in England.
Educators, as the protagonists of their practice and agents of change (Prince 2019), are in the best place to discover, experiment with and develop ways of supporting children’s learning out-of-doors. Yet, they often express uncertainty, lack of knowledge and confidence in implementing outdoor pedagogies (Kiviranta et al. 2023; Prince 2019). Taking learning outside the classroom is more than just a change of place. It requires a different praxis; a dynamic, interactive, place responsive approach. The outdoor space becomes a pedagogical place (Gessiou 2022) that affords new opportunities for the emergence of certain intentions, interactions and behaviours; the development of ‘invisible’ pedagogies (Bernstein, 1996).

This aim of this research was to address the gaps in educators’ knowledge and confidence in developing place emergent outdoor pedagogies. We invited practitioners to observe themselves in-action, reflect on and discuss the structural, behavioural and pedagogical affordances that physical environments offered them and ways these informed their actions and interactions.

Conceptual framework

The ecological approach studies the animal in its environment. The two are in a close, mutually constituting relationship. ‘Animal and environment make an inseparable pair’ (Gibson, 2015, 4). Environmental affordances offer possibilities for certain action and restrict others. Environments also consist of others. Social environments are highly complex, dynamic and ever-changing systems. Others afford opportunities for interactions and relationships; they offer the richest and most elaborate affordances in the form of behaviours and interactions.
Taking learning outside the classroom is, therefore, much more than a change of physical surroundings. It involves a whole new ecology with its own environmental, relational and pedagogical affordances. It leads to the emergence of invisible pedagogies (Bernstein, 1996), which are open ended, flexible, opportunistic, child and play centred. The role of adults is to support children’s explorations and engagement with the environment and to use diffuse criteria to evaluate children’s learning.

Methodology

This study invited practitioners to reflect on the environmental affordances of outdoor places and generate pedagogical insights about the invisible pedagogies they employed. We adopted a grassroots Participatory Action Research approach with a self-development, emancipatory agenda (McNiff 2017). We positioned educators as the insiders of their practice and offered them the methodological tools to generate practitioner knowledge and collectively re-define the standards and rationality of their practice (Kemmis 2009).
Our methodology consisted of three stages: Staring with reflection-in-action (Schӧn 1983), we invited practitioners to engage with the children outdoors, as they would ‘normally’ do, and use wearable cameras to capture some of these interactions. The second stage, reflection-on-action (Schӧn 1983), involved practitioners watching their recordings and reflecting on the pedagogies they employed, their interactions with the children, the opportunities and challenges they experienced. During the third stage practitioners shared instances of their engagement and their reflections in focus groups. At the end of each focus group practitioners identified the next steps; aspects of their outdoor practice they wanted to investigate next. These stages were then repeated in three series, each emerging from and leading to the following.

Findings

Each setting investigated a different aspect of outdoor learning. Despite the variation of focus, all studies examined possibilities of inhabiting the outdoors for different pedagogical purposes. These are presented in a tapestry of outdoor pedagogies.


 
References
•Bernstein, B.1996. Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory, Research, Critique. London: Taylor and Francis.
•DfE. 2023. Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage. Department for Education UK. Accessed December 10, 2024. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/early-years-foundation-stage-framework--2
•Gessiou, G. A. 2022. “A Follow-up Review on the Impact of a Participatory Action Research Regarding Outdoor Play and Learning.” Educ. Sci., 12 (10): 679. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12100679
•Gibson, J. J. 2015. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. New York: Psychology Press.
•Kemmis, S. 2009. “Action Research as a Practice Based Practice.” Educational Action Research, 17(3): 463-474. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790903093284
•Kiviranta, L., E. Lindfors, M. L. Rönkkö and E. Luukka. 2023. “Outdoor Learning in Early Childhood Education: Exploring Benefits and Challenges.” Educational Research, 66(1): 102–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2023.2285762
•Green, M. and M. Rayner. 2020. “School Ground Pedagogies for Enriching Children’s Outdoor Learning.” Education 3-13, 50(2): 238–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2020.1846578
•McNiff, J. 2017. Action Research. All you Need to Know. London, UK: Sage.
•Prince, H. E. 2019. “The Sustained Value Teachers Place on Outdoor Learning.” Education 3-13, 48(5): 597–610. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2019.1633376
•Prince, H. E. and O. Diggory. 2023. “Recognition and Reporting of Outdoor Learning in Primary Schools in England.” Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 24(4): 553-565. https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2023.2166544
•Schӧn, D. A. 1983. The Reflective practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. NY, USA: Basic Books.
•Waite, S. 2010. “Teaching and Learning Outside the Classroom: Personal Values, Alternative Pedagogies and Standards.” Education 3-13, 39(1): 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004270903206141