Letting Go: child-led learning
in the outdoor environment
Trisha Maynard,
Director, Research Centre for Children,
Families and Communities.
E-mail: trisha.maynard@canterbury.ac.uk
Introduction...Context

Foundation Phase for Wales

Child-initiated learning in the outdoor
environment

Interest in Reggio Emilia – child-led
learning
Focus and structure of this
presentation…
The perceived risks of child-led learning
outdoors
A story in three parts:
1. What the practitioners said about childled learning outdoors
2. The projects
3. Their use of the outdoor environment
and the perceived ‘risks’ of child-led
learning outdoors
Interpretations…
‘Child-initiated’ – the same as ‘childled’?
 Play/being playful and learning
 ‘Child-initiated’ - encompasses
play/playful and active learning
approaches that are essentially led by
the child.
 Risk – what is this? (e.g.Tovey, 2007)

Why child-led learning
outdoors?

Child-led learning may be easier outside…
and more appropriate:
• it appeared easier for teachers to
relinquish control and allow children to
take the lead in their learning when
outside the classroom walls (see Maynard
2007);
• child-initiated learning is likely to be
supported by being in the diverse, rich,
sensory outdoor environment.
Swansea Projects
1 ‘Forest School – an evaluation’ (Trisha
Maynard et al.)
2 ‘Outdoor Play and Learning’ (Trisha
Maynard and Jane Waters) (OP&L)
3 ‘Through a Different Lens: Exploring Reggio
Emilia in a Welsh Context’ (Trisha Maynard
and Sarah Chicken) (Reggio)
4 ‘Exploring Reggio Outside’ (ERO)
5 ‘The ‘underachieving’ child: exploring the
impact of the outdoor environment on
children’s learning, behaviour and wellbeing’ (TUC)
6 ‘Exploring practitioners’ perspectives of
well-being in early years settings’ (EWB)
(Trisha Maynard, Jane Waters and Jennifer
Clement)
Methodologies/methodsReggio projects




Loosely-based on action research
model;
Socio-cultural approach- research
‘team’;
Series of seminars – interpretations and
co-construction of key ideas;
Exploration of child-led learning within
settings.
Data / data analysis




Data: interviews, observations (videorecorded), field notes, documentary evidence.
Thematic analysis of the teacher interviews
and written reports + field notes and
documentary evidence;
Codes used to identify themes; use of Nvivo 8;
Analysis of the video observations (in ERO)
using own framework.
Part One…
What did the teachers
say about child-led
learning outdoors…
… and what use did
they make of their
outdoor environments?
Teachers’ enjoyment of the outdoor
environment…
I love it. I just wish I could get out there more. I
really enjoy being out it’s lovely. The children,
the fresh air and just the feeling of being out. I’ve
always loved being out from a little child. When I
grew up I was always out. I had the opportunity
to go climbing mountains and things like that. My
walk to school was always through big ferns and
it was all the smells. I love it and it’s quite sad
that these children don’t get these opportunities
now. I just wish we could do more.
ERO School B Int 3
Children’s enjoyment of the outdoor
environment…
…they absolutely love it...The looks on
their faces, their voices change, their body
language is different, they’re off running,
excited, the whole energy is different, isn’t
it. It’s just fantastic.
ERO School D Int. 3
The outdoor environment…
I mean it’s all going on out there isn’t it. The
weather, the…It’s all you know real life is
out there. It’s not made and put on a board,
a pretty picture by me. It’s out there it’s
happening. You know, the planes in the sky
and the clouds and the weather and the
wildlife. It’s all there isn’t it the whole
curriculum is there.
ERO School D Int.3
The space for one thing. The children are
not confined to a small area they have far
more space there. I think once they have
got over that initial excitement of having the
freedom then they do focus in upon
whatever they are doing. As I’ve said you’ve
got all the natural materials outside that you
can work with. You’ve got all the physical
activities that you can do.
ERO School F FP.
The health benefits obviously, it’s fresh air, it’s
not nasty central heating with all the germs flying
around as there are at the moment...
ERO School D, Int 3
Benefits for practitioners…
…I’ve definitely got now, more of an insight into
how children are thinking, what they’re
thinking about. I’ve listened to their ideas and
seen how they can make connections and
the language that they’ve been using freely
and I feel I know them better than I did
before.
ERO School D Int.3
Child-led learning outdoors…
perceived benefits
Enthusiasm/ motivation/ curiosity...
[The children] are running with their own
ideas on things, the motivation is there to
explore. It’s just… the looks on their faces. It
tells me, you know, there is no other
evidence you need really.
ERO School D Int. 3
Imagination…
I was really pleased with the range of
ideas they have come up with. And how
excited they’ve been to come up with
those ideas. They’re just so kind of on it,
you know, you can almost see their
brains working.... Children have got
some great ideas and they just bounce
off each other.
ERO School D Int.2
Co-operation…
The team spirit demonstrated by 4 and 5 year
olds would put some adults to shame. They
worked in harmony, taking turns, sharing, cooperating and discussing together.
ERO School G FP
…when
they are working outside…they just
get on with it. They get on with everybody.
There’s no quarrelling. They never say –
‘Oh what can I do now?’ ‘What can I do
next?’ They never ask to come in if I’m
honest.
ERO School E Int. 3
Engagement…
…it’s because they’ve got more of a leading
role in the project. It’s… they are the ones who
came up with it. They are the ones who are
going back and forth to it all the time perhaps
that why they’re very … they value it a bit more I
suppose. It’s their sort of ideas and their work .
ERO School A Int.2
Benefits for particular groups of
children…
Some of the quieter ones have become a lot
more outgoing. I’ve also noticed when they are
actually on task with something they are really
enjoying it because it’s their interest.
ERO School A Int. 3
Children who were very shy and lacking in
confidence changed outdoors and became
totally different children. They became leaders
and instigators. They followed their ideas and
were willing to work with others.
ERO School B FP
I’ve got one child in the class who is very quiet
and has great difficulty in any formal work and
he’s very reluctant to speak, but outside, doing
any activities like that, building, creating,
whatever, he… his speech is developing and
he’s quite…yes… he’s quite happy to discuss
what he’s been doing.
ERO School F Int.2
…probably those children with a little bit more of
a behaviour problem are the ones that benefit
most.
ERO School E Int.1
The livelier children are far more motivated
outdoors with hands on activities, and are
so engrossed they seem to get less
distracted so less problems occur….
…Some less able children who don’t
enjoy sitting at the table, thoroughly enjoy
working outside because there’s no failing
outside and no right and wrong.
ERO School G Int 3
Part Two
A closer look at child-led learning…
…examples from the ERO project.
Part Three
The practitioners’ use of the outdoor
environment …and the perceived
risks of child-led learning outdoors
The Practitioners’ Use of the Outdoor
Environment
Not all the practitioners made use of their
outdoor environments.
For example in the ERO project:
 Three of the eight teachers took the children
outside every day ;
 One teacher - a couple of times a week;
 One teacher - a couple of times a month;
 Three teachers - less than a couple of times
a month.
This pattern was replicated in other projects.
More than ‘constraints’?





Practical ‘constraints’: access, staff,
vandalism, weather, clothing, Christmas….
ERO – these were not always correlated
with the teachers’ use of the outdoor
environment.
Not fully aware of potential uses and
benefits of the outdoor environment.
Cultural reluctance?
Pervasiveness of an instrumental view of
the curriculum.
Six perceived (and inter-related)
‘risks’ of child-led learning
outdoors
There is a risk that….
1 The headteacher, parents, governors,
inspectors will not understand/approve of
what I’m doing and complain;
2 The children may get hurt;
There is a risk that…
3 I may not achieve what I’m meant to
achieve (child-led learning takes too
long!):
a) Getting outside
b) ‘Listening’ to children…
c) It’s easier to tell them!
d) Children won’t learn what they’re meant to be
learning i.e. content
4 I may lose my authority/ identity (sense
of self) as a teacher;
5 I may lose control (of ‘bodies and
minds’);
6 I may end up looking stupid (I don’t
know what to do or how to support the
children!).
Common questions…
• What do I do/ where do I position myself when
•
•
•
•
•
the children are involved in play/active
learning experiences?
At what point should I intervene?
What level and kind of support is appropriate?
What kinds of questions are appropriate?
What is the difference between (positive)
intervention and (negative) interference?
And when do I tell them the ‘right’ answer?
Conclusion
Is child-led learning outdoors worth the
risk?
Do the benefits outweigh the potentially
undesirable consequences?
 There may be criticisms/complaints;
 The children may fall and hurt
themselves;
 The children may not learn what
teachers think they should learn;



The children may be more challenging,
less conforming – demonstrate their
agency
It may require teachers to reconstruct
their perceptions of a good teacher and
a good pupil and of how knowledge is
(co-) constructed;
It may require teachers to develop new
knowledge and skills…
These may include…







Reconstructing;
‘Listening’;
Letting go;
Refocusing;
Framing;
Restraining;
Searching
(see Maynard and Chicken, 2010)
And the benefits?
If given the space and time, many
(though not all) children will demonstrate
their enthusiasm, motivation, confidence,
concentration, curiosity, creativity,
commitment, co-operation, focus…...
Isn’t this a risk worth taking?
References – own published
articles/chapters



Maynard, T. and Chicken, S. (2010) Through a
Different Lens: Exploring Reggio Emilia in a Welsh
Context, Early Years.
Maynard, T. (2007) ‘A Risky Business? Encounters
with Forest School and Foucault’, Education 3-13,
379-391
Maynard, T. and Waters, J. (2007) ‘Learning in the
Outdoor Environment: a missed opportunity’, Early
Years: An International Journal of Research and
Development, 27(3): 255-265.


Maynard, T. (2007) ‘Forest Schools in Great Britain,
an initial exploration’, Contemporary Issues in Early
Childhood, Vol 8 (4): 320-331.
Maynard, T. (2007) ‘Making the Best of What You’ve
Got: Adopting and Adapting the Forest School
Approach’ in Austin, R. Letting the Outside In, Stokeon-Trent: Trentham Books.
Unpublished Reports


Maynard, T., Waters, J., and Clement, J. (2008)
Exploring Reggio Outside: children playing and
learning in the outdoor environment, Swansea
University.
Maynard, T. and Chicken, S. (2006) Through a
Different Lens: Exploring Reggio Emilia in a Welsh
Context, Swansea University.
New publications on play from
TACTYC members include:




Broadhead, P., Howard, J. and Wood, E. (2010) Play
and Learning in the Early Years, London: Sage.
Brooker,L. and Edwards, S. (2010) Engaging Play,
Maidenhead: OUP (McGraw Hill).
Moyles, J. (Ed) (2010) Thinking about Play:
developing a reflective approach, Maidenhead:
McGraw-Hill.
Moyles, J. (Ed.) (2010) The Excellence of Play (3rd
Edition), Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.
Useful resources for outdoor play and
learning in the early years include:



Bilton, H. (2010) (3rd Edition) Outdoor Learning in the
Early Years: Management and Innovation, London:
Routledge.
Garrick, R. (2009) (2nd Edition) Playing Outdoors in
the Early Years, London: Continuum.
Knight, S. (2009) Forest Schools and Outdoor
Learning in the Early Years, London: Sage.


Tovey, H. (2007) Playing Outdoors: Places and
Spaces, Risk and Challenge, London: OUP.
White, J. (2007) Playing and Learning Outdoors,
London: Routledge.