Learnscapes as Pedagogical Tools: Understanding Teachers’ Levels of Use.

Learnscapes as Pedagogical Tools: Understanding Teachers’ Levels of Use. Keith Skamp Centre for Children & Young People School of Education Southern Cross University Lismore, NSW, Australia

Formal School EE in Australia • EE for a Sustainable Future:National action Plan (2000) • National EE policy (to be released 2005) • EE is non-mandatory in all states except NSW: EE Policy for Schools (NSW DET 2001) • EE mainly the focus in Science & Studies of Society & Environment KLAs (subjects) • Action and value outcomes (‘for’ the environment) not a feature in school KLA curricula • Sustainability concepts underrepresented in curricula • Whole school approaches to EfS are increasing (e.g., Sustainable Schools Program in NSW) but mainly primary level (continued next slide)

Formal School EE in Australia • Examples of citizen science occur (e.g., GLOBE/ Streamwatch) • EE Centres are in all States (but rarely ‘researched’); some using sustainability concepts, e.g., ecological footprint • Partnerships are increasing (e.g., between councils and schools) encouraged by grants. Waste Wise Schools (Victoria) is an example. • EE not a core element in preservice teacher education. (see: http://www.aries.mq.edu.au/Tilbury, D., Coleman, V., Garlick, D. (2005). A National Review of Environmental Education and its Contribution to Sustainability in Australia: Formal Education. Report prepared by Australian Research Institute in Education for Sustainability (ARIES) for the Department of the Environment and Heritage, Australian Government.)

Implementation of EE in NSW • State EE Council: responsible for NSW Government EE Plan, Learning for Sustainability. The Council oversees EE across the State. (www.environment.nsw.gov.au/cee) • Environmental Education Policy for Schools (NSW DET, 2001) and an associated support document. • EE is an across the curriculum orientation • Schools must have a SEMP (School Environmental Management Plan) which embraces three EE foci: curriculum, management of resources and management of school grounds. • Learnscapes has been an initiative • Evaluation of implementation of NSW DET Policy (2005) suggests ‘curriculum’ is the weak link.

Context for the Learnscape research In NSW • Sustainable Schools Program encourages school ground development (accreditation being trialled) • Learnscapes: An aid to implementing your School Environmental Management Plan (NSW DET, 2004) argues learnscapes can be part of SEMPs • See website www.curriculumsupport.nsw.edu.au/enviroed/index.cfm for NSW EE initiatives.

Learnscapes are: • “spaces and places in and near school grounds that provide a forum for hands-on learning experiences related to environmental education” • usually thought of as being “designed to permit users to interact with an environment” and • “may be natural or built, interior or exterior” (Extracts from NSW DET EE Curriculum Policy for Schools and its support document, 2001)

Learnscape programs: • Are intended to integrate with the various Key Learning Areas (KLAs) • Should address syllabus learning outcomes, including the objectives of environmental education, especially “ecological sustainability” The involvement of the whole school and its community in their design and maintenance is encouraged. (Extracts from NSW DET EE Curriculum Policy for Schools and its support document, 2001)

Implicit theory underpinning learnscapes Not explicit in NSW DET documents although they expect teachers to use them as “pedagogical tools” (NSW DET, 2004, p.2) Underlying theory(ies) Consistent with: • Place-based education (e.g., Woodhouse & Knapp, 2000; Orr, 1994) • Teachers to use Learnscapes’ “affordances” for (ecological and other) learning; ‘affordance’ is integral to a learnscape’s nature as built with students’ characteristics in mind (Malone & Trantor, 2002) • Experiential learning is implied. • Education about, in and for the environment • Education about and for sustainability

Aim of the study To investigate teachers’ self-reported practice of learnscapes at a primary school renown for its learnscapes (over a two year period) (14 LS were noted by its Learnscape Coordinator, the most well known by the staff being the rainforest, outdoor classroom and the rice paddies) A previous study (Environmental Education Research, 7 (4), 2001, 333-358) identified commonalities in perceptions related to the effect of learnscapes on teaching and student learning in general and then across Key Learning Areas (KLAs) and Environmental Education (EE), in particular.

Conceptual framework for research questions Use of learnscapes as a ‘pedagogical tool’ is an educational change: it requires most teachers to “learn to do something differently” (Hoban, 2002, p.164) ‘Different’ because teachers: • Rarely teach outdoors • Do not focus in environmental education outcomes

Conceptual framework for research questions (cont.) Educational change is a complex system comprised of many interdependent ‘change frames’ and the processes connecting them (see Figure 2.1) • “Teacher learning” is a change frame within this system. It implies that ‘teacher learning’ is both cognitive and social and ‘distributed among influences on learning’ (see Figure 2.2) and influenced by different actions (e.g., reflection) Classroom change begins with teachers examining their beliefs about practice CBAM Model • It represents “theories of the learning process teachers go through as they gain knowledge and develop skills in using new ideas and practices” (Anderson, 1997, p.360). [Not as encompassing as Complexity Theory model (Hoban ,2002)]

Research questions How has the availability of learnscapes impacted on the pedagogy of individual teachers? What factors help in understanding the pedagogies that particular teachers have adopted? (‘Factors’ are seen as interdependent, associated with ‘change frames’ and not related to change in a mechanistic cause-effect way)

Interpreted use of Learnscapes as a “pedagogical tool’ to be change/ innovation Can then ask: Do teachers understand why the change was introduced and how to ‘use’ the change/innovation? Is there a connection between teacher concerns and understanding and regularity of use of an innovation? What change frames are impacting on use of the innovation? To respond to the two research questions: applied Hall and Hord’s (1987) Stages of Concern categorisation of teachers’ levels of concern when dealing with curriculum change (table 1); Dlamini, Rollnick and Bradley’s (2001) two typologies of teacher change, related to (a) teachers’ level of understanding of an innovation and (b) their mode(s) of using the innovation (table 1). Hoban’s (2002) complexity theory of change Perspective used with these research questions

Stages of Concern, Hierarchy of Understanding & Typology of Utilisation

Research Procedures Research perspective An interpretive perspective because aim was to ‘understand’ teachers’ decisions and insights (derived from how teachers see their world). Methodology Phenomenological in nature in that author saw opportunity to explore an innovation within a school, and the teachers’ uses of an innovation. Research questions emanated from reflection upon teachers’ responses from an initial study and then further responses at a later time. Research questions then determined the direction of the analysis. Method School was a purposeful selection; Teachers and principal were all volunteers (all 8 first; 7 second, including 2 not teaching or available for first interview [M and A]) Semi-structured interviews (+ background about school/some observations): use of learnscapes, their impact on teaching/learning (then probe KLA/EE learning) Analysis not by coding but development of interview narratives related to learnscape use and then interpreted using typologies and change frames Credibility: initial interview interpretations validated by teachers; similar independent interpretations; principal’s views consistent; description ‘thick’/audit trail available; negative instances sought and reported.

What was found? Two years on OVERALL • Two infrequent users; four moderate to regular users • LS were perceived more as places where KLA learning could occur outdoors rather than as locations where EE outcomes were purposively pursued (only 3 of 6 teachers referred to EE spontaneously in interviews) Re: Categorising these teachers’ perceived use • A teacher’s level of use, understanding and stage of concern depended upon which of these interpretations was used. Grouped the six teachers according to their use of learnscapes as outdoor teaching and learning areas, irrespective of whether pedagogical emphases focussed on KLA or EE outcomes. (when teachers used learnscapes with environmental learning outcomes in mind this has been noted)

Categorisation of teachers re their concerns, understanding and use of learnscapes

Details of how these teachers were classified along the three continua are on the following slides If there is time details about the six teachers and their principal will be shown If not will move to assertions and conclusions

A struggler trying to move forward:Nerida • Nerida had used the outdoor areas a couple of times in the second year, and despite some initial success it is not a regular occurrence. • Personal Level of Concern. She repeatedly expressed personal concerns about her ability to manage her kindergarten class beyond the classroom- this seemed to be related to her belief that she thought her children perceived that they were not learning when outside. • Utilisation Understanding Level. Could describe outdoor teaching techniques. • There are positive signs that Nerida is progressing, e.g., she was starting to recognise differences with teaching using learnscapes. • Her occasional use of learnscapes seemed to be focussed on achieving learning outcomes in particular KLAs (e.g., a language walk illustrating concepts like ‘through’ and ‘under’), but there was no overt emphasis on EE outcomes. • Nerida appeared to believe that simply being in the school would assist students in developing a caring environmental attitude (e.g., planting their tree in kindergarten and watching its progress). • An apparent contradiction in Nerida’s limited use of learnscapes was that she described herself as an ‘outdoors person’; this, though, may be a factor in her ongoing desire to use the outdoors more.

A struggling domesticator still with management concerns but a keen EE outlook • Annalee used the learnscapes infrequently but had a stronger orientation towards EE outcomes (but not necessarily outside the classroom). • Was mainly focussed on her management concerns • Utilisation knowledge level as she does describe how teaching outdoors “tends to equalise you a little bit as you are not “the teacher at the front of the class”; outside learning “keeps us all on the one playing field feeling”. • Of especial interest is Annalee’s strong environmental orientation while realising her inability to translate that into practice (compared herself to Chris’ teaching). • Her class experience EE vicariously and Annalee knew it.

Succeeders bordering on innovators:Lauren • Lauren – now a regular user of the school learnscapes- currently she was “outside with every lesson with year 4”; interesting case as she was only teaching music and drama. • There was a focus on the consequences for student learning when using learnscapes: “Being in a situation like that (the learnscapes) the children are possibly more forthcoming with what they talk about and what ideas they come up with. I think the environment they’re in encourages more broader thinking by looking, feeling, imagining it not being there- that sort of thing. Maybe they become more involved in discussion”. • Uses learnscapes “as you need it”, to achieve curriculum purposes, and which could not have been done “nearly as effectively” otherwise • At the personalization knowledge stage, as she applies her (apparent) outdoor teaching strategies to whatever subject she is teaching, and they have become part of her teaching style. She never mentions management concerns. • Interesting in a number of ways: • EE was part of her music and drama-in an incidental but semi-regular way • Notable because she was not involved in the LS development.

Succeeders bordering on innovators: Kate • Kate is more definitely placed at the succeeder moving towards innovator level of use. • One of three teachers (with Chris and Marianne) who referred to the value of learnscapes for EE before it was raised in the interviews. • At the consequence stage of concern, as she regularly focussed on the impact of using the outdoors to obtain a greater impact on her students’ KLA learning and she saw as important “just making them (children) aware that the school is not just the school classroom. You can have a classroom outside and do lots of learning in the learnscape areas”. • With respect to EE Kate spoke of a general environmental awareness. She contrasted trying to engage students about snow before an excursion of the snowfields (and how “very very difficult” it was) versus not having to go to a rainforest (for similar learning purposes) because it was a school learnscape… • Apart from Chris, Kate was the only teacher who articulated her specific environmental knowledge. (cont next slide)

Succeeders bordering on innovators: Kate (cont.) • At the personalisation knowledge level. She appeared to be able to apply her outdoor (and to some extent, her EE) teaching strategies to whatever subject she was teaching, and these strategies had become part of her everyday teaching (Learnscapes are mentioned in her teaching programs but emphasises that learnscapes are used “informally” as well). • Kate indicated the many ways that you could teach using learnscapes: a “teacher directed” or “student directed” way. This would suggest both formal and informal production knowledge, as able to incorporate learnscapes in a range of learning situations; however this probably does not apply to the use of learnscapes for EE purposes.

The innovators- at personal level: Marianne • Marianne, a long term casual teacher at the school; particularly liked “outdoor education”. • At the consequence stage of concern: cited numerous instances of the positive effects of outdoor learning with her classes. For example, in a unit on minibeasts: (but what is)more rewarding is the impact it has on children. I see children that cannot succeed for one reason or another inside the four walls of a classroom suddenly be engaged in such a spontaneous way with learnscapes. For instance we were out collecting slaters the other day and a little (year 4) child came up who has never spoken to me before- he came up to me spontaneously and just told me what a wonderful activity it was to go searching for slaters in the rainforest…to me that is really…enough. [cont next slide]

The innovators- at personal level: Marianne (cont) She continued that you can see it (the excitement and the learning) in “their faces”: those children who, for instance, haven’t experienced success before, or not much of it, experiencing success out in the environment- they seem to lose inhibition, They seem to acquire the skills of questioning which seems to be a dying art these days…They enquire…seek information…question. The way they work together cooperatively. I think generally their self-esteem and their sense of feeling good about what they’re doing. I also think a lot of what we teach these days lacks purpose. I think the children knowing that it is their future- their environment- I think they’re recognizing their responsibility in caring for it, so they’re enthused, they’re motivated and they’re intrigued. • She spoke of how she had overcome management difficulties: “my teaching style has changed somewhat- I think because of my own interest in fostering concern with the kids for the environment”. [cont next slide]

The innovators- at personal level: Marianne (cont) • Marianne’s knowledge of the processes involved suggested that she may be at the production knowledge level- she regularly plans lessons that use learnscapes in order to make learning more meaningful; learnscapes had changed her “planning”. • Marianne would appear to be a user at the innovator level, but not directly influencing the school (probably because of her casual status): “becauseI know learnscapes are there” she “structures activities that involve… KLAs out in the learnscapes”. She has generalized the presence of learnscapes and outdoor learning into her normal teaching repertoire. The possible reason for her use of learnscapes was her passion for the environment.

The innovator-at personal & school levels: Chris • Chris- inspired staff change through enthusiasm and modelling. (School Environmental Club- students from each grade- Streamwatch, Birdwatch, rice paddies care etc.; initiated and organised the WED) • At the collaboration stage of concern, BUT Chris had extended the boundaries of the innovation, adapted and even critiqued it, i.e., refocussing concern stage. He advanced the view that although it may be argued that: “this is where we are going to have a learnscape… and that is how it is going to be used for these KLAs as far as outcomes…it doesn’t seem to work that way. You look at something and you think, ‘Well how can I use it and how could we get involved in it’ ”. (He was critical of the concept ‘learnscape’ as it conjured up the picture that the NSW DET had invented a new idea which Chris saw as no different to ‘school environmental areas’ which the Gould League had promoted for decades.) [cont. next slide]

The innovators- at personal and school levels: Chris (cont) • At the production knowledge level (prepared syllabus and curriculum policy support documents; always looking for ways to incorporate the “outside” into the various subjects. His students “…seem to enjoy…the pattern” of studying the environment. Citing examples related to “studying rice growing” and Operation Birdwatch, when done over a period of years “it becomes structured…we tell them what to do… what we’re going to look for, why we’re doing it…”; the “older kids… tell the younger ones”. • Always a strong overt environmental emphasis over many years, e.g., Birdwatch was “test(ing) the health of the school playground”. • The only teacher to ‘teach’ sustainable practices in a concrete way. “what we've done, is to use that (rice paddies) to teach the rice growing cycle… it's like planting, irrigating, harvesting and threshing, milling and then selling it or eating it and then saving some seeds for the next cycle; and showing to the children how it is a sustainable agricultural system; using that to teach Indonesian and also to sort of teach I guess EE, science and technology…”. [Background- social science/ geographical knowledge about environmental matters and mapping skills; saw himself as an “outdoors teacher” ( three schools).] [cont. next slide]

The innovators- at personal and school levels: Chris (cont) • In his modest way Chris has impacted on the lives of many teachers and students through his belief in outdoor education and environmental awareness and his constant modelling of that belief. • All teachers interviewed referred to Chris in a positive and inspiring manner.

The principal’s perceptions Leadership • Eric was a non-teaching principal supportive of LS: through encouragement [Chris directly] and financial assistance; loved LS (and occasionally taught children using LS.) • Had not advocated an ideal ‘Innovation Profile’ for LS use. Probably a ‘laissez faire’ orientation- innovation use to be discovered through the implementation process (Anderson, 1997) • Seemed to have a real sense of what his teachers were thinking Reflections • Eric- a year later- teachers “are less resistant to using learnscapes Cited the impact of outside “science exploration day” (WED) • Teachers think of LS more as a place where you go and do learning “probably see(ing) real value in taking children into what they regard as a different learning environment and seeing it as important for children’s discovery learning in particular”. [not necessarily EE/rather ‘experiential’] • Felt that most teachers would only associate EE with science teaching and mainly in the rainforest. (contrast Lauren) • Teachers may still be struggling because of time; outdoor management issues; and possibly teacher personality (‘outdoor people’).

FindingsRQ 1: How has the availability of learnscapes impacted on the pedagogy of individual teachers? The ‘inertia’ of existing practice was disturbed to different degrees: their pedagogies affected in various ways (from struggler to innovator -see table 1) (Not assumed that all would become succeeders etc.) Hoban argues teachers must see a ‘purpose’/ ‘need’ to change (here impact on student affect & learning) Overall certainly positive (cf. 5% use excursions in science )

RQ2: What factors help in understanding the pedagogies that particular teachers have adopted? • Identified interdependent ‘factors’ relate to change frames of ‘teacher learning’ (1 to 3), school leadership (4) and structure (4). Teachers’ “conceptions of teaching” is critical to obtaining change (Hoban, 2002); here their views about what is involved in teaching outdoors. • CBAM: change is “evolving from (a) lack of knowledge and skill” (Anderson, 1997) Aligns with first two factors • Change evolves from existing practices (here an ever-increasing realisation of what LS pedagogy could achieve (Leithwood & Montgomery, in Anderson) Consistent with third factor [cont next slide]

RQ2: What factors help in understanding the pedagogies that particular teachers have adopted? (cont) Interdependent ‘Factors’ related to ‘change frames’ • Familiarity with learnscapes More regular and varied users: • Seemed to understand the change more (see Table 2) • Seemed to appreciate impact on environmental outcomes more [exception- Annalee, but not specific environmental knowledge] • Expressed environmental knowledge of the affordance of each LS (in two cases) [cf. Shulman] [cont next slide]

RQ2: What factors help in understanding the pedagogies that particular teachers have adopted? (cont) 2. Focussing on the consequences of using Learnscapes Teachers used LS more if they appreciated the learning potential of LS and adapted their teaching style to suit outdoor learning (see table 2) (To be a succeeder does not require being at collaborative/ refocussing levels of concern) [cont next slide]

RQ2: What factors help in understanding the pedagogies that particular teachers have adopted? (cont) 3A. Awareness of multiple learning outcomes from LS use Used LS more if: perceived that LS contributed to a wider range of learning outcomes (eg learning outcomes other than those focussing on say just ‘science’ and ‘understanding’): “ learning to do surveys and going out and classifying and working out what you’re looking for and then coming back and reporting on it and interpreting, classifying… it’s all to do with problem solving… everything they do as far as outside… even when it comes to social skills…(they are) being taught in (all) the KLAs (Chris) Only Chris referred to problem solving as a EE outcome while Marianne alluded to general scientific enquiry.

RQ2: What factors help in understanding the pedagogies that particular teachers have adopted? (cont) 3B. Appreciating social learning as a key outcome from LS use The Land Care group example: Landcare is “a group thing…people who take over, some people become leaders and other people organizing things…you learn from other people that you work with, that you talk and you sort of socialize”. Chris speculated whether the rice farm tasks were “training in doing that (Landcare ‘thing’)” (considering how some students ‘behaved’ when doing these tasks) Out of school learning is “socially-culturally mediated” (Hyllested, 2004) and oriented to group learning (Rennie et al., 2004) [cont next slide]

RQ2: What factors help in understanding the pedagogies that particular teachers have adopted? (cont) 3C. Focussing on the encounter rather than the outcome This tended to be Chris’ (and maybe Kate’s) approach Compare: Eisner’s ‘expressive’ objectives/ Stenhouse’s Principles of Procedure/ the values associated with ‘Place-based’ education. Maybe embed outcomes in LS experience after have decided to encounter the LS. [cont next slide]

RQ2: What factors help in understanding the pedagogies that particular teachers have adopted? (cont) 4. Being open to school level facilitation and professional development (social and situated dimensions of school change) Policy, game plan and game plan components (CBAM ‘Intervention Taxonomy’) • Policy not evident in relation to pedagogy except in initial site development plans • Principal’s support of Chris and staff + staff meetings + financial support (implied gp) • WED (PD) + Chris’ modelling (gpcomponents); General teacher-talk + interviews (incidental gp components) (School infrastructure for LS use?- Elements of short and long term planning but not ‘formal’ “participative enquiry”; -Teacher sharing of ideas- effective PD but limited injection of new ideas [single site]) [cont next slide]

RQ2: What factors help in understanding the pedagogies that particular teachers have adopted? (cont) 4. Being open to school level facilitation and professional development (cont.) Leadership and change Teachers did not refer to principal but all mentioned Chris (“second change facilitator”) [cont next slide]

RQ2: What factors help in understanding the pedagogies that particular teachers have adopted? (cont) Other Change Issues ‘Ownership’ of the change may not be a required condition for change (but may impact on EE learning outcomes as a focus) External factors (priorities) (Raised question of ‘forcing’ change [Eric] and the interesting issue of whether it is better for teachers to teach in ways with which they are familiar than to use an ‘innovation’ ineffectively [Dlamini et al. 2001]. Again teachers must see need for change [Hoban, 2002])

Interdependent conditions related to ‘Teacher Learning’ for change (Here LS as ‘pedagogical tools’)(see Figure 3A)A possible interpretation [Hoban, 2002] Student feedback (major influence) Action (within authentic contexts): WED + teachers’ own efforts Community (embryonic) Reflection (mainly ad-hoc) Conceptual inputs (were within-school including modelling + NSW DET publications- not mentioned)

Conclusions An innovation with no prescribed ‘Innovation Profile’: Pedagogical change ‘explained’ by • Matrix of processes involving many factors both internal and external • ‘Teacher learning’ change frame seemed most important with the support of ‘school leadership’ (second change facilitator) As there is “access to practice as a resource for learning” (a condition required for change- [Hoban,2002]) and discussion about practice, although embryonic, present, there is potential for further use of LS as a pedagogical tool. Schools in similar situations could reflect on these findings to encourage LS use Will the NSW DET’s new EE policy (EfS emphasis) and LS as part of SEMPs help?

References ALLISON, B., O’SULLIVAN, T., OWEN, A., RICE, J., ROTHWELL, A. & SAUNDERS, C. (1996) Research Skills for Students (London, Kogan Page). ANDERSON, (1997) Understanding teacher change: Revisiting the Concerns Based Adoption Model, Curriculum Inquiry, 27(3), 331-367. BRADY, L. (2003) Curriculum Construction, 2nd edn. (Sydney, Pearson). BRONFENBRENNER, U. (1997) The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press). BRYMAN, A. (2001) Social Research Methods (Oxford, Oxford University Press). DAVIS, J. (1997) Bringing it all together: partnerships, holisms, and futures, Australian Journal of EnvironmentalEducation,13, 93-94. CUTTER-MACKENZIE, A. & SMITH, R. (2003) Ecological literacy: The missing paradigm in environmental education (part one) Environmental Education Research, 9(4), 497-524. DLAMINI, B., ROLLNICK, M. & BRADLEY, J. (2001) Typologies of teacher change: A model based on case study of eight primary school teachers who used an STS approach to teaching science, paper presented at the Conference of the Australasian Science Education Research Association, Sydney, Australia, July. EISNER, E. (1985) The Art of Educational Evaluation: A Personal View (Philadelphia, PA: Falmer). GOODRUM, D., HACKLING, M., & RENNIE, L. (2001) The Status and Quality of Teaching and Learning of Science in Australian schools, (Canberra, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs).

References (cont.) GOODSON, I. (2001) Social histories of educational change, Journal of Educational Change, 2(1), 45-63. GOUGH, A. (1997) Education and the Environment (Melbourne, Australian Council for Educational Research). GRALTON, A., SINCLAIR, M. & PURNELL. (2004) Changes in attitudes. Beliefs and behaviour: A critical review of research into the impacts of environmental education initiatives, Australian Journal of Environmental Education,20(2), 41-52. GUSKEY, T. (1995) Results-oriented professional development: In search of an optimal mix of effective practices. (North Coast Regional Educational Laboratory). Available online at: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/rpl_esys/pdlitrev.htm (acces sed March 8 2005). HALL, G. & HORD, S. (1987) Changes in Schools: Facilitating the Process (New York, State of New York Press). HOBAN, G. (2002) Teacher Learning for Educational Change (Buckingham, Open University Press). HYLLESTED, T. (2004) What is the influence of out-of-school settings for learning?, paper presented at the Conference of the Australasian Science Education Research Association, Armidale, Australia, July. KOLB, D. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as a Source of Learning and Development, (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass) LUCAS, B. (1997)Learning through landscapes: the importance of school grounds, Australian Journal of Environmental Education,13, 85-88. MALONE, K. (2004) ‘Holding environments’: Creating spaces to support children’s environmental learning in the 21st Century, Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 20(2), 53-66.

References (cont.) MALONE, K. & TRANTOR, P. (2003) School grounds as sites for learning: making the most of environmental opportunities, Environmental Education Research, 9(3), 279-303. NEUMAN, W. (2000) Social Research Methods, 4th edn (Boston, MA, Allyn and Bacon). NSW DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. (1989) Environmental Education Curriculum Statement (Sydney, NSW Department of Education). NSW DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION & TRAINING (NSW DET). (2001a) Implementing the Environmental Education Policy in Your School (Sydney, NSW DET). NSW DET. (2001b) Environmental Education Policy for Schools (Sydney, NSW DET). NSW DET. (c.2004) Learnscapes: An Aid to Implementing Your School Environmental Management Plan (NSW DET, Sydney). ORION, N., HOFSYEIN, A., TAMIR, P. & GIDDINGS, G. (1997) Development and validation of an instrument for assessing the learning environment of outdoor science activities, Science Education, 81(2),161-171. ORR, D. (1994) Earth in Mind (Washington, Island Press). PUNCH, K. (1998) Introduction to Social Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (London, Sage).

References (cont.) RENNIE, L., FEHER, E., DIERKING, L. & FALK, J. (2003) Towards an agenda for advancing research on science learning in out-of-school settings, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 40 (2), 112-120. SENGE, P. (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation (New York, Doubleday). SHEFFIELD, R., HACKLING, M., & GOODRUM, D. (2004) Mapping changes in teachers’ practice during a professional learning program: Collaborative Australian Secondary Science Program (CASSP), paper presented at the Conference of the Australasian Science Education Research Association, Armidale, Australia, July. SHULMAN, L. (1987) Knowledge and teaching: Foundations for new reform, Harvard Educational Review,7 (1), 1-22. SKAMP. K. (1986) Curriculum development: The process model revisited, Curriculum Perspectives, 6 (1), 7-11 AUTHOR, K., &BERGMANN, I. (2001) Facilitating learnscape development, maintenance and use: Teachers’ perceptions and self-reported practice, Environmental Education Research 7(4), 333-358. STENHOUSE, L. (1975) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development (London, Heinemann Educational).

References (cont.) TILBURY, D. (1995) Environmental education for sustainability: Defining the new focus for environmental education, Environmental Education Research 1(2), 195-212. TILBURY, D. (2004) Rising to the challenge: Education for sustainability in Australia, Australian Journal for Environmental Education, 20(2), 103-114. TILBURY, D., COLEMAN, V., & GARLICK, D. (2004) Environmental Education and its contribution to Sustainability in Australia: Formal Education. Report prepared by the Australian Research Institute in Education for Sustainability (ARIES) for the Department of the Environment and Heritage, Australian Government (Sydney: ARIES). TYAS TUNGAAL, H. (1999) Learnscapes: making significant changes in Australian school yards, OzEEnews,77, 1. WOODHOUSE, J. & KNAPP, C (2000) Place-based curriculum and instruction: Outdoor and environmental education, ERIC Digest. Available online at: http://www.ericdigests.org/2001-3/place.htm (accessed 24 March 2005). YEARNEY JR. R (1975) A case study from the research for training science teachers in the use of inductive/indirect strategies, Science Education 59(4), pp.521-529.References (cont.)

Contact Details Should you like a copy of the PowerPoint presentation simply email: Kskamp@scu.edu.au

Learnscapes as Pedagogical Tools: Understanding Teachers’ Levels of Use.