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/enviro
ed/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, 333358) 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)
Perspective used with these research questions
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
Stages of Concern, Hierarchy of Understanding & Typology of Utilisation
Stage of Concern
(Hall & Hord, 1987)
Hierarchy of Understanding
(Dlamini et al. 2001)
Typology of Utilisation
(Dlamini et al. 2001)
Awareness- teacher has no concerns
about the innovation
Unawareness- teacher is unable to
perceive differences in approach
between the ideal practice and current
practice
Drop-out- teacher who does not
continue to use the strategies after the
first attempt
Informational- teacher seeks
information about the innovation but is
unconcerned about how it impacts on
them
Perception- teacher is able to
recognise the differences in approach,
between ideal and current practice
Struggler- teacher continues to use the
innovation but at a very mechanical
level, making few changes and with a
low level of understanding
Person- teacher has concerns about how the
innovation will impact on them, and whether
they will be able to meet the necessary criteria
Utilisation- teacher is able to appropriately
describe the use of the strategies in the trial
Domesticator- teacher who has taught
successful lessons using the materials but has
adapted the strategies to their normal teaching
approach
Management- teacher focuses on the
processes and tasks associated with
running the innovation
Personalisation- teacher is able to apply the
new strategies to their personal teaching style
Succeeder- teacher has successfully used the
approach with understanding but not enough
to be independent of the curriculum materials
Consequence- attention of the teacher
is focussed on the impact of the
innovation on students
Production- teacher is able to synthesise and
develop contextualised lessons incorporating
the new strategies
Innovator- teacher who understands
the approach and is able to vary and
generalise it to their other teaching
Collaboration- teacher focus on
coordinating with other teachers
Refocussing- teacher extends the
boundaries of the innovation and
adapts it
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
Teacher
Stage of Concern
(Hall & Hord, 1987)
Hierarchy of
Understanding
(Dlamini et al. 2001)
Typology of Utilisation
(Dlamini et al. 2001)
Chris
Refocussing
Production
Innovator
Marianne
Consequence
Production
Innovator
Kate
Consequence
Personalisation
Succeeder
Lauren
Consequence
(Towards
production)
Personalisation
(Towards innovator)
Succeeder
(maybe innovator)
Annalee
Personal to
Management
Utilisation
Domesticator
Nerida
Personal to
Management
Utilisation
Struggler to
domesticator
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 selfesteem 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): “because I 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’).
Findings
RQ 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’
1.
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 [exceptionAnnalee, 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 (gp components); 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])
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), 497524.
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
References (cont.)
MALONE, K. & TRANTOR, P. (2003) School grounds as sites for learning: making the
most of environmental opportunities, Environmental Education Research, 9(3), 279303.
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
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.521529.References (cont.)
Contact Details
Should you like a copy of the PowerPoint
presentation simply email:
Kskamp@scu.edu.au