Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Research Proposal
Prepared by:
Nor Fadzila Aziz
PhD Candidate (PB103013)
Supervisor:
Associate Professor Dr Ismail Said
Faculty of Built Environment
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
81310 Skudai, Johor
MAC 2011
1
1 Research Topic
Affordances of School Grounds in Malaysia for Children‘s Environmental Learning
2 Research Aim
The aim of this study is to investigate the affordances of primary school grounds at
varying degree of urbanization in Malaysia and its effects on children‘s competence for
environmental learning. The schools are situated in three different localities, which are
urban, suburban and rural.
3 Research Objectives
To achieve the aim, the following research objectives are formulated:
i. To identify factors that influence children‘s play behavior, learning mode
and competence for environmental learning in the school ground,
ii. To investigate children‘s perception on the perceived affordances of their
school ground through their action (i.e. play behavior and activity) in the
school ground, and
iii. To identify the design and planning parameters of school ground that
permits children‘s competence for environmental learning.
4 Assumption
Exposure to nature influences children to prefer natural elements and enriches their
experiences (Samborski, 2010). The openness to experience with the biodiverse outdoor
environment is the strongest predictor of perceived competence for environmental
learning (Chawla & Heft, 2002). Thus, the context of the school ground can play a role
in diminishing the effects of personality on students‘ perceived competence for
environmental learning.
2
5 Research Questions
The specific research questions dealt here are:
i. What are differences in the availability of affordances between the schools
at varying degrees of urbanization in Malaysia?
ii. How children at different localities perceived affordances in their school
ground?
iii. Are the differences in the availability of affordances in the school ground
at different localities will influence children‘s play and activities in the
school ground?
iv. Are social background, school policy and regulation influence children‘s
play behaviour and mode of learning in the school ground?
v. What are the most suitable elements in the school ground that afford
children‘s environmental learning in primary schools in Malaysia?
6 Research Background
The design and affordances of a school ground expresses societal norms and
objectives, guiding and orchestrating children‘s outdoor activities at school (Gagen,
2000). School ground function as ‗moral geographies‘ which embedded with codes
about how and where the children ought to learn and play. The design of the school
ground, including the feature, school regulation and social dynamic, plays an important
role to promote particular form of physical activities and limit others. Previous studies
have proved that the design of the school ground did influences children‘s play
behaviour, and simultaneously enhances their developments and well-being.
Appropriate physical environment in the school ground as a mean toward advancing
developmental and educational process (Cohen, 1990), and has potential as site which
promote environmental learning among children.
Children have a unique and direct experiential way of knowing the natural
world. Environmental learning among children happens through direct (observations,
3
sensory stimulation, movement in the space) and indirect (education, interpersonal
communication, popular media) experiences of nature (Malone, 2003). Environmental
learning involves three dimensions: (1) learning about the environment supports
environmental knowledge and understanding, (2) learning for the environment is
directed toward environmental stewardship and action, (3) learning in the environment
encourages interactions and experiences in the environment (Disinger, 1990; Murdoch,
1993). Rickinson et al. (2004) defined it as ―outdoor learning‖ which refers to learning
modes or experiences that took place outside of the conventional classrooms. Outdoor
learning activities could be fieldwork and outdoor visits, outdoor adventure educations,
and school ground and community projects. Taylor et al. (1991) terms it as ―contextual
learning‖ which include teaching methods more familiar than textbooks and lectures,
such as group workshops, fieldtrips, hands-on experience, and the participation of
parents and elders in instruction. Thus, children‘s environmental learning is an
environment that can afford children‘s motor skill activities, social interactions and
cognitive activities. Children could benefit significantly from maximizing the
environmental learning opportunities of the school grounds.
School ground setting that provides opportunities for movement, investigation,
concentration, and social interaction, will influence the messages children derived from
their interaction within the educational setting, contributing to environmental learning,
like their understanding of their place within the environment (Cohen, 1990). This
understanding subsequently develops their sense of place and belonging, through the
appliance of shared culture of ownership and responsibility in the school ground
(Lindholm, 1995; Malone, 2003; Dyment, 2007; Powell, 2007). Researchers have
highlighted that the contextualization of information through outdoor environmental
learning activity enhances learning, and so produces better school achievements than
standard textbook and classroom instruction (Castagno and Braboy, 2008; Lipka, 1990;
Taylor et al., 1991). This mode of learning improves students‘ comprehension because
students are taught through familiar topics and learning styles. Students also seem to be
more receptive to curricular content if they know that knowledge can be put into
practice (Castagno and Braboy, 2008; Lipka, 1990; Taylor et al., 1991). It enhanced
4
curricular knowledge acquisition because students could establish a link between theory
and practice. According to Hilliard and Sizemore, environmental learning can also
improve knowledge acquisition by empowering students and reinforcing their cultural
identity (Reyes-García, V. et al., 2010).
7 Problem Statement
Nowadays, children spend a large proportion of their time at school, and school
has been recognized as key setting to promote and to contribute to children‘s physical,
social and cognitive development, school ground is a potential environmental learning
arena for children. Outdoor school environments associated with natural elements could
become the primary places which provide a good opportunity for children to gain
experience with nature (Hart, 1993) and improve their learning, cognitive, social and
physical qualities (Ismail Said & Mohd Sarofil Abu Bakar, 2005). Children play in a
school ground is an experiential phenomenon which is shaped or influenced by outdoor
context. The context is both physical and social. Physically, the play directly influenced
children‘s motoric and sensual activities with landscape elements and spatial pattern of
outdoor spaces, which they involved hands-on experiences. Socially, play is a social
interaction involving sharing, negotiating and turn-taking. In contrast to indoor learning,
which based on vicarious learning method referring to books, movies, recorded audio
and visual materials, did not involved direct learning. Indoor learning did not support
children‘s motor skill and cognitive development in direct context. It just afforded
social development.
Despite the extensive research on children‘s environmental learning done in
Western worlds, a few studies, if any, are conducted on how outdoor environmental
learning help in children learning skills and development. Inasmuch, in many
developing countries including Malaysia outdoor environmental learning activity in
school compound is minimal due to present curriculum based on vicarious learning
method rather than directs one, which not fully stimulates children‘s scientific and
thinking skills, as well as because the lack of outdoor spaces and amenities for
5
environmental learning. Learning process in many schools were took place in the
classroom and many schools were designed with formal setting and conventional school
ground. The conventional school ground limits active learning and physical activities
for young children. The outdoor setting did not support children‘s cognitive and
physical development and the children‘s need of varying interests and abilities.
Typically the design of the Malaysian school ground has been proven not to be
successfully in meeting children‘s need and certainly provides no substitute for
meaningful outdoor environmental experiences for children (Khazainun Zaini, 2007).
This phenomenon may leads to a lower competence of environmental learning among
children.
In order to investigate children‘s competence for environmental learning, a pilot
study was conducted on January 2011 at Sekolah Kebangsaan Taman Bukit Indah,
Johor, using survey questionnaire with 12 questions given to 35 respondents (boy = 20,
girl = 15) from standard five (aged 11 year-old). The questions comprised the three
dimensions of environmental learning which are learning about, learning for and
learning in the environment, in order to investigate their environmental knowledge and
understanding, environmental stewardship and action, and also their interactions and
experiences in the environment. Based on the result, it seems that the children‘s
preferences and engaged activities mostly associated with man-made play items (i.e.
ball, skipping rope, bicycle) and rule-governed play (42.7%) such as badminton,
football, netball, which involved a lot of physical movement for their gross motor
development. Little informed the outdoor play that involved cognitive (i.e. symbolic
and dramatic play) and social (i.e. associated, cooperative, solitary play) development.
Thus, they reported flat surface (85.7%) and field (82.8%) as the very important
elements on the school ground, while rocks (65.7%) and stumps (62.8%) as the not very
important elements. When they were asked about the reasons for their chosen outdoor
play, majority informed that because the play is fun, their favorite‘s play and the play
involved physical movement. They like to play during windy (88.5%) and dim (62.8%)
day. Majority of the children reported that outdoor plays teach them about sharing
(80.0%), co-operating (74.3%) and respecting others (74.3%), and they are mostly play
6
with their siblings (60.0%) and best friends (54.3%). When they were asked about new
knowledge or understanding they gained from their play in the outdoor environment, 32
answers (88.9%) were derived from the children, and four children (11.1%) left the
answers blank. However, from 32 answers given, 43.8% of the answers were based on
the examples given during the pilot study, and 37.5% answers were too general which
not explained their broader understanding. Only 21.9% answers given can be
considered as based on the children‘s understanding gained from their observation and
experiences while playing in the outdoor environment. Some examples of interesting
answer given were, “if we make eye contact to a dog, it will chase us because the dog
thinks we are bad guys” and “the worms will come out from the ground during rainy
day”. The final question in the questionnaire asked the children about their opinion on
outdoor environmental learning. Majority (74.3%) of the children responded positively
as they classified learning outside the classroom are fun, active and more exiting, and
they have the opportunity to get engage with the natural environment. The rest who
answered disliked and not sure, concerned about the comfortability in the outdoor
environment and also the weather.
From the result of pilot study, it showed that children‘s competence for
environmental learning is still very low since their outdoor plays mainly just afforded
physical development. This is because the design of the school ground emphasized on
wide-open expanses of turf and asphalt which just favor vigorous, rule-bound and
competitive play. Conventional school grounds have their limitations in promoting
physical activity in large part because many children are not interested or able to play in
such vigorous, rule-bound activities (Dyment, 2007). According to Harvey (1990), a
high preference for natural elements is considered a measure of success of
environmental learning. Drawing on concepts from ecological psychology, qualities of
environments are likely to support the development of competence for environmental
learning (Chawla & Heft, 2002). When talking about competence for environmental
learning, the environment should be both the subject matter and milieu (Pederson, D.,
1999), and most environmental learning competence is learned informally, although it
can be learned formally in the classroom (Lingwood, 1971; Robinson and Wolfson,
7
1982; Stapp, 1971). The result also showed that the children desired for experiential
learning experience outside of the common classroom.
In 2010, there was 27.2%, approximately eight million children aged below 15
years old, out of the whole populations in Malaysia (Department of Statistics Malaysia,
2011). And according to the Ministry of Education Malaysia (2011), 2,899,228 children
enrolled in national primary school in Malaysia in year 2011. Its means that 36.2% was
primary school children aged between 7 to 12 years old. The primary school children
have been taught the syllabus related about environment especially in science subject.
Since standard one, they learned about living things (i.e. themselves, animals, plants)
and world around them such as using their senses, light and dark (Curriculum
Development Centre Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2002). As the children went to a
higher standard, the syllabus expended to a broader scope. For example, they also
learned about non-living things, magnets, soils, force and energy, and the earth and the
universe, materials and technology. The subject involved scientific skills such as
science process skills (i.e. observing, classifying, predicting, experimenting), and
thinking skills such as critical and creative thinking skills (i.e. attributing, analyzing,
evaluating, making inferences, generalizations and hypotheses), (Curriculum
Development Centre Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007).
There is a large population of children in Malaysia and growing numbers of
children entering schools that need to be educated using the environmental learning
mode. Besides, with a greater national attention to improve education, therefore, there
are needs for new criteria to be included in planning directives to insure outdoor
learning environment with landscape qualities representing affordances and challenges
for children at school for their environmental learning. To increase children knowledge
with outdoor, we need to consider the ways in which the school ground is constructed
and experienced.
8
8 Research Gap
Research about school grounds are various, however, less research explored on
the implication of school grounds design and its surrounding landscape (context)
towards children‘s competence for environmental learning, and how different
environmental experiences will influence person‘s environmental knowledge, attitude
and behavior. A study conducted by Duerden, M. D., & Witt, P. A. (2010) provide
important insights regarding the role of environmental knowledge and attitude in the
development of environmental behavior, and the role of indirect and direct experiences
in nature which deserve further investigation.
Studies on the school ground mostly focused on the physical setting and design
of the play spaces in the school grounds, and its effect on children‘s physical activity
and development (Nor Fadzila Aziz & Ismail Said, 2010). An evaluation were taken on
the design and landscape qualities of the school ground, followed by an observation or
behavioral mapping on children‘s activity level and play behavior. Studies in the school
ground also concern on the potential of the school ground to promote good health and
development among children as well as ground for outdoor learning (Dyment, 2005,
2009; Powell, 2007; Ozdemir, 2008).
As shown in the Table 1, many studies were conducted in western countries.
Thus, study on the affordances of school ground for children‘s environmental learning
in non-western countries should be conducted because the real issues are not known yet.
Furthermore, the context is differing due to cultural and environmental factors.
According to Ruchter, M., et al. (2010), the additional socio-demographic factors have
strong influence of on the components of environmental learning, which in case of the
children includes in particular the degree of alienation from nature. Since this alienation
is expected to further aggravate in increasingly urbanized societies, thus environmental
learning is important for children, especially investigating the relationship between the
environmental experience and children‘s competence for environmental knowledge
from different contexts.
9
Table 1: Previous studies on environmental learning
Major studies
of
environmental
learning
Concern and Findings
Setting
(Context)
Parameter
being measured
Malone, K.
(2003), Dyment,
J. E. (2005),
Dyment, J. E.
(2007)
Concern: Factors influence environmental
learning
The variations in the types of play and
environmental learning are related to
variations in the physical qualities of the
school grounds, and the school philosophies
concerning the use and management of the outdoor school environments.
Primary
Schools,
(Australia),
Elementary and
high schools in
urban area
(Canada)
Spatial design
School
policies
Play
behaviors
Perceptions
Singal, N.
(2009), Cohen,
S. (1990),
Powell, M.
(2007)
Concern: Learning setting
Outside school learning experiences, both
structured and less formalized were
perceived by children as being more active,
collaborative and challenging, contributing
to their understanding of their place within
the environment.
Primary schools
(UK), Schools
of rural and
middle class
community,
Elementary
school (US)
Education
setting
Learning
experiences
Perceptions
Harvey, M.
(1990), Duerden, M. D.
(2010), Kernan,
M. (2010),
Concern: Learning experience
Direct experience with natural elements
contribute positively to the development of
environmentally disposition among
children, provided multiple, intense
opportunities for participants to apply what
they had learned during the preparatory
process.
The range of localized (field of actions) and
childhood education setting influences the
affordances available for children.
Schools in inner
city and rural area (England),
Middle and high
schools (US),
Early childhood
education and
care settings in
urban area
(Ireland),
Nature
experience - direct and
indirect
Learning
outcomes -
environmenta
l knowledge
and
disposition,
attitudes, and
behavior.
Dyment, J. E. (2009),
Ozdemir, A.
(2008),
Lindholm, G.
(1995),
Hemming, P. J.
(2007),
Samborski, S.
(2010)
Concern: School ground design and physical
activity levels
Most schools have limited landscape
qualities and lack of affordances, which
influence the physical activity levels in the
schoolyard.
Children in the good schoolyards (have
access to natural areas) took part in a greater
number of activities than children in the bad
one.
Primary schools neighbourhood
(Australia and
Canada, Ankara,
Sweden,
England, US)
Spatial design
Physical
activity levels
Perceptions
10
9 Theoretical framework
In recent years there has been a growing discourse regarding play outdoors as
both a need and right of young children, and central to their well being (Kernan, 2010).
Children‘s preferences to engage with active play in particular settings are influenced
by their psychological affection and distinction experiences with those settings (Andel
1990; Min, 2006. The best environments for children are those which are developed on
the basis of children‘s natural needs, taking into account the play behavior engaged in at
different developmental periods, including the physical, social and cognitive terms of
play. Research on play shows that, children prefer to play in the environments with high
degree of challenge, novelty and complexity (Fjortoft & Sageie, 2000). A modifiable
and malleable environment offers more opportunities for exploration and learning, with
corresponding behavioural consequences (Moore & Wong, 1997)
Children have a particular attraction to natural environments. The benefits of
play in natural landscapes are widely recognized (Chatterjee 2005; Chawla 2007;
Fjørtoft 2004; Titman 1994). The negative effects on children deprived of contact with
nature during their formative middle childhood years are also well-documented (Hart
1979; Moore and Wong 1997). Some of the benefits for children in nature include more
creative and elaborate symbolic or make-believe play (Kirkby 1989; Samborski 2010);
stress reduction and greater ability to cope with upsetting events (Wells and Evans
2003); greater gains in agility and balance (Fjørtoft 2001); and better concentration by
inner-city children and those diagnosed with attention deficits (Faber Taylor and Kuo
2008; Faber Taylor et al. 2002; 2001). Children who spend significant time in nature
also show a greater commitment to protecting the natural world during their adult years
(Chawla 1999; 2007; Wells and Lekies 2006). Nature study helps students acquire
knowledge, values and a concern for the environment, as well as the motivation and
commitment to participate in environmental stewardship (Engleson and Yockers 1994;
Harvey 1990). All the benefits children gain from play in nature contribute to their
environmental understanding and experience, simultaneously for their environmental
11
learning. School grounds that include natural diversity may help to meet the objectives
of environmental learning.
A few studies in primary or elementary schools explore the relationship between
the physical characteristics of the school ground and the children‘s activities and
perceptions (Adams, 1990; Ozdemir & Yilmaz, 2008; Ward Thompson, 1995; Young,
1990). The findings of the studies suggested that school outdoor environments offer
positive and negative affordances. Usually positive affordance can be seen in the
context of motoric actions. For example, an outcome from Ozdemir and Yilmaz
research at Ankara primary school grounds found that school grounds provided a space
for children to run, playing ball games, jump rope and etc. School grounds‘ potential for
active play is mostly preferred by the students who are satisfied with the yards, even
though there are lacks of landscape features. In contrast for those who are not satisfied,
the school grounds did not offer many positive affordances for them, where the design,
materials and features provided in the school grounds usually not fulfill their needs and
they can easily feel bored. A variety of elements in the school ground promoted more
physical activities among children; vigorous, moderate or sedentary activity, and appeal
more broadly to children of varying interests and abilities, and it also promote social
interaction and cognitive development (Dyment, 2009). Research has revealed the way
in which children can learn especially through play is strongly influenced by nature, the
design and the policies informing the use of school grounds (Moore, 1989; Titman,
1994; Moore & Wong, 1997).
To benefit children and meet their needs for environmental understanding and
exploration, a landscape must be child-friendly: it should have enough complexity to be
interesting and it should capture the imagination through an element of mystery, as a
path does by disappearing around a corner (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989). It should also
provide small vegetative rooms or dens for symbolic play (Titman 1994; Stanley 2010).
Such a landscape offers opportunities for environmental and social learning through
repeated use and care. It also allows children to express themselves freely in creating
and controlling their special places, and protects the secrets and activities in these places
12
from adult interference (Chatterjee 2005). A child-friendly landscape is likely to meet
children‘s developmental needs for power, freedom, fun and belonging (Glasser 1990).
The diversity of a natural, child-friendly landscape provides more affordances for
functional play (running, climbing rocks, sliding down slopes), constructive play
(building huts and shelters, manipulating loose parts) and symbolic play (playing house,
pirates, or kings and queens) (Fjørtoft 2004; Samborski 2010). The imagination needs
deep absorption. Symbolic play and socio- drama, which usually take place in
concealed or semi-concealed places, lift a child to the highest level of functioning
(Nabhan and Trimble 1994).
10 Underpinnings
The underpinnings of this study are (1) Theory of Affordances (Gibson 1979;
Kytta, 2002); (2) theories related to the development of environmental competence such
as Ecological Psychology Theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1993; Gibson, 1979) and
Person-Environment Fit Theory (Caplan & Harrison, 1993; Edward, Kaplan & Van
Harrison, 1998) and; (3) theory related to children‘s play and learning such as Piaget‘s
Theory of Play (Hillis, 1978; Piaget and Inhelder, 1969).
10.1 Theory of Affordances
Several studies in ecological perceptual psychology (Gibson, 1979; Kytta, 2002)
suggest that children shape the environment and in turn shaped by it. The shaping of the
environment depends on its affordances as perceived by the children (Heft, 1988; Kytta,
2002) as indicated in the Theory of Affordance (Gibson, 1979; Kytta, 2002). It means
that children‘s responses with the environments and how they perceived the
environments in term of its functional properties rather than its appearances (Chawla
and Heft, 2002; Fjortoft, 2004).
As such affordances refer to the functionally significant properties of the
environment which are perceived through action, and the perception of individual
13
affordances is part of the whole activities, and it‘s provide a psychologically relevant
concept for analysis of the evolving child-environment relationship (Gibson, 1979). As
adults, we perceived the elements in the environments from its aesthetic values, but
children valued the elements, either the natural features or designed features, from its
―affordances‖ and ―playability‖ values, according to Heft‘s Functional Taxonomy of
Affordances in children‘s outdoor environments (Heft, 1988). Affordances can be
described in term of the ―field of free action‖, ―field of promoted action‖ (Reed, 1996)
and ―field of constrained action‖ (Kytta, 2002). Reed described the affordances as ―field
of free action‖ (FFA) when it involved independent, active exploration and activity that
striving for meaning, and ―field of promoted action‖ (FPA) when the affordances are
made available or emphasized for children by other people. However, Kytta found that
the actualization of affordances was influenced by the social and culture factors, which
she terms it as ―field of constrained action‖ (FCA). Affordances are always unique and
different for each individual and each specific group of people. It is vary in terms of the
richness of information they offer in response to a person‘s engagement (Chawla &
Heft, 2002).
10.2 Theories related to the development of environmental competence
Competence is a quality that has emerged from the psychology research
literature as being significant for adaptive, adept and emotionally satisfying human
functioning (Sternberg & Kolligan, 1990). It refers to the capacity to exercise control
over valued spheres of life and in so doing achieve desired outcomes. These
psychological outcomes are recurring from person-environment experiences (Chawla &
Heft, 2002). In ecological psychology theory, the environment is to be describes in
psychologically meaningful ways, and the individual is viewed as a responsive agent
who purposively engages with his or her surroundings. In this respect, individual
functioning at any moment is conceptualized as being situated in a particular
environmental context. Thus, this study lies in transactional psychology research, which
the person-environment relationship is seen as dynamic, interactive system, the
components of which cannot be taken out of context.
14
In Ecological Developmental Psychology Theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), he
discusses children development in socio-ecological context. According to
Bronfenbrenner (1993), a person‘s development cannot be studied out of the
multileveled social, material, and cultural context in which the development takes place.
Developmental psychological studies should simultaneously focus on both the
individual and the context, and concentrate on developmental processes (the processes
that lead to the current situation); should not only focus on the results of development.
According to Bronfenbrenner, (1979, 1993), there are various levels of environment,
namely the level of microsytems (i.e. home, school, day-care centre), mesosystem refers
to collections of more than one microsystem (i.e. a child‘s daily environmental dyad
consisting of a home, school and after-school activities), exosystems are systems of
which individual is not necessarily a part, but which affect his or her life regardless (i.e.
a child‘s life is affected by happenings at the parents‘ workplace), and macrosystems are
the prevalent models that in each culture affect the micro, meso and exosystems (i.e. the
prevalent beliefs, custom, etc. of a culture shape a child‘s life).
James J. Gibson‘s Ecological Perceptual Psychology refers to the person-
environment relationships is immediate and based on practical activity rather than on
being analytical (1979). It is based on a new description of stimulus information, which
based on ecological information; accessible through human (and other organisms‘)
senses which forms their ecological reality. According to Gibson, perceptual reality
forms an entity, the parts of which cannot be separately examined because each
component defines each other (Kytta, 2003). Perception is fundamental in Ecological
Perceptual Psychology; perception cannot be separated from the intentional activity
with which it is connected. The framework of Ecological Perceptual Psychology thus
approaches the framework activity theory, in which activity is seen as the basis for all
mental phenomena, and the study of activity is seen as an essential unit of psychological
analysis (Leontjev, 1978). In addition, perception is oriented towards finding the
affordances of an environment. When perception and action mix; action reveals new
affordances, and the perception of new affordances creates new action (Kytta, 2003).
15
According to Person-Environment Fit Theory, individual‘s behavior, motivation
and mental health are influenced by their environments and the characteristics of these
environments (Kaplan & Harrison, 1993; Edward, Kaplan & Van Harrison, 1998).
Children are not likely to be very motivated and satisfied if they are in environments
that do not fit their psychological needs.
10.3 Theory related to children’s play and learning
An understanding of children‘s play is important for adults to learn about the
nature of childhood and ways of working with children to optimize their development.
The value of play as a learning medium can be explained in terms of all aspects of
children development, namely physical, cognitive, emotional and social (Khazainun
Zaini, 2007). In contemporary theories of play such as Freud‘s theory of play, Eriksen‘s
theory of play and Piaget‘s theory of play, play is treated as one aspect of behavior
within a more wide-ranging focus of explaining development trends in behavior and
causal relationships between behavior and environment. Piaget‘s Theory of Play
examines play from the perspective of its contribution to intellectual development
which is cognitive development (Hillis, 1978; Piaget and Inhelder, 1969). He viewed
play as a ―biological model of interaction between children and environment (Heseltine,
1987), meaning that play represents a way of manipulating the outside world so the
environment (play objects) fits the child‘s existing way of structuring and viewing the
world (Hillis, 1978; McDevitt & Ormrod, 2002).
11 Scope of Study and Variables
The study lies in transactional psychology research which looking at person-
environment relationship; the school ground elements, designs and policies are the
environmental (contextual) factors that may influences children‘s physical, social and
cognitive development. In order to accomplish the objectives, the study will investigates
the children‘s competence for environmental learning based on their perception on
16
perceived affordances, their play behaviours, activities and experiences in the school
grounds (Refer Appendix A).
The unit of analysis is the middle childhood children, aged 7-12 year old. The
reason for selecting children at these ages is because they are at the concrete-operational
stage for children‘s cognitive development, according to Piaget‘s theory of cognitive
development (McDevitt & Ormrod, 2002). This is a phase where children learn to move
beyond a conception of the universe as a collection of objects to a system of operations
(Piaget and Inhelder, 1969). The emergence of logical (cause-effect) thinking, including
reversibility and ability to sequence and serialize started to occur in their thinking. They
are able to take their point of view, and understand a part or the whole relationship and
classification. They have the ability to interpret their experiences, preferences and
feelings as they use the outdoor environment extensively (Chawla, 1992; Kellert, 2002),
because they benefit from increasing freedom to play outdoors without adults‘
supervision. In addition, middle childhood children are typically becoming less
egocentric and more socio-eccentric at this age, as they have a greater understanding of
his or her relationship with others (Black et al., 1992). Furthermore, the increasing
endurance and coordination enable them to enjoy many gross motor activities and
games (Billman, 1996). They perceived play in the outdoor environments which offer
various exciting and challenging play elements, provide them the opportunity to choose,
make decision, experiment, imagine and create new things.
Besides primary school children, the study also will involves the headmasters
and teachers of each school as respondents, in order to get their opinion about the
function of school grounds, environmental learning and issues related to it (i.e. policies
and school regulations). The information gain from the headmasters and teachers will
lead to a better understanding on the potentials and challenges towards the
implementation of environmental learning on the school grounds in Malaysia.
The study will be conducted in three primary schools in Johor representing three
different localities which are urban, suburban and rural area. The reason for selecting
17
Johor is because it is a second state in Malaysia with the highest population of children
aged 5-14 year old, after Selangor. According to population projections based on the
2000 population census, in 2010, there were 695,608 children aged 5-14 year old in
Johor, approximately represented 7.79% from the overall population of children of
these ages in Malaysia (Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2010). The study will be
conducted at different localities as a reason to investigate the influence of the
surrounding landscape context of the school ground towards children‘s perception on
perceived affordances at their school ground. The results will indicate other factors that
may influence the development of children‘s competence for environmental learning.
Thus, the surrounding landscape of the school ground (in range of 0.5 miles or 0.8
kilometers from school boundary) will be included in the scope of study site for
mapping purposes. The distance is selected based on the General Neighbourhood
Concept and the formation criteria for educational facilities set in the Community
Facilities Planning Standards, Department of Town and Country Planning of Peninsular
Malaysia, JPBD Bil. 19/97, 1997 (Jabatan Perancangan Bandar Dan Desa Negeri
Selangor, 2008), which is within the radius of about 0.5 miles or 0.8 kilometers from
the neighbourhood centre. For this study, only National School; either ‗Sekolah
Kebangsaan‘ (SK) or ‗Sekolah Rendah Kebangsaan‘ (SRK) type under the Ministry of
Education Malaysia will be selected for this study. This is to establish a more accurate
result to reflect Malaysian‘s multi-racial and multi-ethnicity country.
12 Significance of Study
The study is significant in order to response to the problem statement and research gap
that have been mentioned earlier in the research proposal:
i. The study will add to the body of knowledge that the elements, designs
and policies of a school ground play an important roles in children‘s
functioning; physically, socially and cognitively, and contribute to the
development of children‘s competence for environmental learning,
ii. The study will accentuate the importance of the development of
competence for environmental learning among primary school children in
18
Malaysia, as it is function as a critical component in subsequent efforts
toward constructive community change.
iii. In the aspect of planning and design, it would reveal the properties,
attributes and key dimensions that support children‘s environmental
learning in the school grounds from the perspective of children, as it will
be put in the model of school ground design.
iv. From the children‘s responses on the perceived affordances of the school
ground, a model of analysis which emphasizes the importance of landscape
qualities representing affordances and challenges for children at school
ground for their environmental learning could be formulated. The model
could be proposed to the Ministry of Education Malaysia to develop school
ground as an effective environmental learning platform.
13 Research Design
As the study aims to investigate the affordances of school grounds at varying
degree of urbanization in Malaysia and its effects on the development of children‘s
competence for environmental learning, therefore, it will investigate the impacts of
physical settings (i.e. elements, designs) and policies of the school ground (independent
variables) on children‘s action (i.e. play behavior and activity), and their perception on
the level of affordances in their school ground (dependent variables). An assessment or
the affordances available to children can provide researcher with one source of
information about the opportunities a community provides for the development of
competence across a wide range of domains. The concept of affordances can sharpen
the observations of children in the environments in order to identify exactly what
actions different features of the environments facilitate, depending on children‘s
capacities (Chawla & Heft, 2002). Apart from the specific affordance properties of
objects, the accessibility of those affordances to children also becomes an important
consideration in this study.
19
The physical settings of the school ground which are the elements (natural and
man-made) and designs (i.e. size, feature, form, space) of the school ground will be
obtained through assessment. The data then will be analyzed by using ArcGIS for
spatial analysis. While the information related to school policies on environmental
learning will be obtained through interview with the headmasters and school teachers.
For children‘s actions, two sets of data will be gathered: overt and covert
actions. Behavioral mapping using ArcGIS will be used in order to record the overt
actions, namely the children‘s movements, spatial patterns and social interactions in the
site plan of each school. Data of the covert actions, which are the children‘s perceptual
responses on the environmental elements and climatic factors that they encountered will
be elicited using survey questionnaire and open-ended interview. Furthermore,
participatory method which involves children‘s expression into drawings and photo-
taking of children‘s like and least liked spaces in the school ground will be conducted in
order to gain a deeper understanding on children‘s perceptual responses.
The overt and covert data, therefore, are the affordances of the school ground
perceived by the children through their physical actions. The affordances (perceived,
utilized, shaped) of primary school ground is then mapped and overlapped resulting to
three maps of school ground for children‘s environmental learning. The three maps of
the school grounds will be compared in order to analyze the level of children‘s
competence for environmental learning at different localities. The questionnaire will be
analyzed using SPSS for inferential statistic analysis, while the interview, drawings and
photos will be analyzed using nVivo for content analysis.
To achieve the objectives, the study will be conducted in several stages as
follows (Refer Appendix B):
i. Define the background, theories and concepts of affordances, ecological
psychology, development of competence and environmental learning.
ii. Define the criteria for quality school ground for children‘s environmental
learning.
20
iii. Field survey and data collection.
iv. Analyzing the physical setting and children‘s behavior and activity (spatial
patterns) using layering series of maps to clarify the affordances of the
school ground.
v. Analyzing the perceptual responses (of children, headmasters and school
teachers) on the elements and environmental learning in the school ground
through descriptive and statistical analysis.
vi. Synthesizing the criteria for the quality school ground for children‘s
functioning which contribute to their competence for environmental
learning.
vii. Documentation of findings on the affordances of school grounds and the
development of children‘s competence for environmental learning,
conclusion and implication of study.
14 Anticipated Findings
The study will reveal the factors that influence the development of children‘s
competence for environmental learning. Thus, the study anticipates getting three
findings:
i. Direct contacts with environmental elements enhance children‘s learning
skills including exploration and manipulation, and simultaneously develop
their competence for environmental learning.
ii. The school ground design and setting more or less are similar; however the
level of affordances perceived by the children from different schools are
differ due to the context of the schools from different localities. Children
from rural school perceived more diverse and variety of affordances to
engage in sensorial and gross-motor activities than children from urban
school.
iii. Besides children‘s experience with nature, the differences and similarities
of affordances between the schools are also due to socio-cultural
background, and school policy and regulation.
21
At the end of this research, the expected result of this study will be a model of
school ground design for children‘s environmental learning and could be use for future
reference and further studies. It is significant in order to identify if there are certain
factors that influence the development of children‘s competence for environmental
learning, especially in the school grounds. This study seeks to determine the quality of
the school ground environment and its surrounding landscape, which is likely to support
the development of competence. These findings will help us to understand the
importance of the environments as both subject matter and context for children‘s
environmental learning from a more holistic perspective.
15 Research Schedule
STAGES OF STUDY YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3
Sem 1 Sem 2 Sem 3 Sem 4 Sem 5 Sem 6
Proposal
Literature review
Problem statement, Aim, Objective formulation
Methodology
Pilot study
Data collection
Data input and analysis
Findings
Writing
Submission
22
References
Major References
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by
Nature and Design. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Chawla, L and Heft, H. (2002), Children‘s competence and the ecology of communities:
a functional approach to the evaluation of participation, Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 22: 201-216.
Dyment, J. E. (2005). Green School Grounds as Sites for Outdoor Learning: Barriers
and Opportunities. International Research in Geographical and Environmental
Education, 14(1), 28-45.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton-
Mifflin.
Heft, H. (1988). Affordances of Chilldren's Environments: A Functional Approach to
Environmental Description. 5(3), 29-37.
Kyttä, M. (2002). Affordances of Children's Environments in The Context of Cities,
Small Towns, Suburbs and Rural Villages in Finland and Belarus. Journal of
Environmental Psychology(22), 109-123.
Malone, K., & Tranter, P. (2003). Children‘s Environmental Learning and the Use,
Design and Management of Schoolgrounds. Children, Youth and Environments,
13(2).
Other References
Adams, E. (1990). Learning Through Landscapes: A Report on The Use, Design,
Management, and Development of School Grounds. London: Learning Through
Landscape Trust.
Andel, J. V. (1990). Places children like, dislike, and fear. Children's Environments
Quarterly 7(4), 24-31.
Billman, J., & Sherman, J. A. (1996). Observation and Participation in Early
Childhood Setting: A Practicum Guide. Sydney: Allyn and Bacon.
Black, J., Puckett, M., & Bell, M. (1996). The Young Children. New York: Merril.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1993). Ecology of Cognitive Development: Research Models and
Fugitive Findings. In Wozniak, R. H. & Fischer, K. W. (Eds.), Development in
Context, Acting and Thinking in Specific Environments. Hillsdale, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbum Associates, Publishers.
23
Caplan, R. D., & Harrison, R. V. (1993). Person-environment fit theory: Some history,
recent developments and future directions. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 253–
276.
Castagno, A.E., Braboy, B.M.J. (2008). Culturally responsive schooling for indigenous
youth: a review of the literature. Review of Education Research 78, 941–993.
Chatterjee, S. (2005). ―Children‘s Friendship with Place: A Conceptual Inquiry.‖
Children, Youth and Environments 15(1): 1-26. Available from:
http://www.colorado.edu/journals/cye.
Chawla, L. (1992). Childhood Place Attachment. In Altman, Irwin & Setha M. Low
(Eds.), Place Attachment (Vol. 12, pp. 63-86). New York: Plenum Press.
Chawla, L. (1999). ―Life Paths into Effective Environmental Action.‖ Journal of
Environmental Education 31(1): 15-26.
Chawla, L. (2007). ―Childhood Experiences Associated with Care for the Natural
World: A Theoretical Framework for Empirical Results.‖ Children, Youth and
Environments 17(4): 144-170. Available from:
http://www.colorado.edu/journals/cye.
Cohen, S., & Trostle, S. L. (1990). Young Children‘s Preferences for School-Related
Physical-Environment Setting Characteristics. Environment and Behavior,
22(6), 753-766.
Curriculum Development Centre (2002). Curriculum Specifications Science Year 1,
Curriculum Development Centre, Ministry of Education Malaysia.
Curriculum Development Centre (2002). Integrated Curriculum for Primary Schools:
Curriculum Specifications Science Year 2, Curriculum Development Centre,
Ministry of Education Malaysia.
Curriculum Development Centre (2003). Integrated Curriculum for Primary Schools:
Curriculum Specifications Science Year 3, Centre, Curriculum Development,
Ministry of Education Malaysia.
Curriculum Development Centre (2005). Integrated Curriculum For Secondary Schools:
Curriculum Specifications Science Year 4, Curriculum Development Centre,
Ministry of Education Malaysia.
Curriculum Development Centre (2007). Integrated Curriculum For Secondary Schools:
Curriculum Specifications Science Year 6, Curriculum Development Centre,
Ministry of Education Malaysia.
Department of Statistics Malaysia. (2011, 2 July 2010). "Population." Retrieved 29
January, 2011, from http://www.statistics.gov.my/portal/index.php?option=
com_content&view=article&id=54:populationupdated31072009&catid=35:key-
statistics&Itemid=53&lang=en.
Disinger, J. F. (1990). Needs and Mechanisms for Environmental Learning in Schools.
Educational Horizon, 69(1), 29-36.
24
Duerden, M. D., & Witt, P. a. (2010). The impact of direct and indirect experiences on
the development of environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 379-392.
Dyment, J. E., & Bell, A. C. (2007). Active by Design: Promoting Physical Activity
through School Ground Greening. Children's Geographies, 5(4), 463 — 477.
Dyment, J. E., Bell, A. C., & Lucas, A. J. (2009). The Relationship Between School
Ground Design and Intensity of Physical Activity. Children's Geographies, 7(3),
261 — 276.
Edwards, J. R., Caplan, R. D., & Van Harrison, R. (1998). Person environment fit
theory: Conceptual foundations, empirical evidence and directions for future
research. In G. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of organizational stress. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Engleson, D. and D. Yockers (1994). A Guide to Curriculum Planning in
Environmental Education. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Public
Instruction.
Evans, J., & Pellegrini, A. (1997). Surplus Energy Theory: An Enduring but Inadequate
Justification for School Breaktime. Educational Review, 49(3), 229-236.
Faber Taylor, A. and F. Kuo (2008). ―Children with Attention Deficits Concentrate
Better After Walk in the Park.‖ Journal of Attention Deficits 20(10): 1-8.
Faber Taylor, A., F. Kuo, and W. Sullivan (2001). ―Coping With ADD: The Surprising
Connection to Green Play Settings.‖ Environment and Behavior 33(1): 54-77.
Faber Taylor, A., F. Kuo, and W. Sullivan (2002). ―Views of Nature and Self
Discipline: Evidence from Inner City Children.‖ Journal of Environmental
Psychology 22: 49-63.
Fjørtoft, I. (2001). ―The Natural Environment as a Playground for Children.‖ Early
Childhood Education Journal 29(3): 111-117.
Fjørtoft, I. (2004). ―Landscape as Playscape: The Effects of Natural Environments on
Children‘s Play and Motor Development.‖ Children, Youth and Environments
14(2): 21-44. Available from: http://www.colorado.edu/journals/cye.
Fjùrtoft, I., & Sageie, J. (2000). The Natural Environment as a Playground for Children
Landscape Description and Analyses of a Natural Playscape. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 48, 83-97.
Gagen, E. A. (2000). Playing the part: Performing gender in America‘s playgrounds, In
S. L. Holloway & G. Valentine (Eds.), Children’s Geographies: Playing, Living,
Learning. New York: Routledge, 213-239.
Glasser, W. (1990). The Quality School: Managing Students without Coercion. New
York: Harper and Row.
25
Hart, C. H. (1993). Children on Playgrounds: Research Perspectives and Applications.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Hart, R. (1979). Children's Experience of Place. New York: Irvington Publishers.
Harvey, M. (1990). ―The Relationship between Children's Experiences with Vegetation
on School Grounds and Their Environmental Attitudes.‖ Journal of
Environmental Education 21(2): 9-15.
Hemming, P. J. (2007). Renegotiating the Primary School: Children's Emotional
Geographies of Sport, Exercise and Active Play. Children's Geographies, 5(4),
353 — 371.
Hillis, L. (1978). Planning for Play. Ohio: Bell & Howell Company.
Ismail Said, & Mohd Sarofil Abu Bakar. (2005). Landscape for Children to Play and
Learn: A Conceptual Framework. Jurnal Teknologi B, Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia, 42, 1-10.
Jabatan Perancangan Bandar Dan Desa Negeri Selangor. (2008). Manual Garis Panduan
Dan Piawaian Perancangan Negeri Selangor, Bab 4: Kemudahan Masyarakat
Retrieved 24 February 2011, from http://www.jpbdselangor.gov.my/
Laporan/Manual_Garis_panduan_piawaian_JPBDselangor/BAB_4_KEMUDA
HAN_MASYARAKAT.pdf?q=kemudahan
Kaplan, R. and S. Kaplan (1989). The Experience of Nature: A Psychological
Perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kellert, S. R. (2002). Experiencing Nature: Affective, Cognitive, and Evaluative
Development in Children. In P. H. Khan & S. R. Kellert (Eds.), Children and
Nature (pp. 117-151). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kernan, M. (2010). Outdoor Affordances in Early Childhood Education and Care
Settings: Adults‘ and children‘s Perspectives. Children, Youth and
Environments, 20(1), 152-177.
Khazainun Zaini. (2007). Children's Concept of Primary School Ground for Planning
and Playing Through Lanscape in Malaysia. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
Skudai.
Kirkby, M. (1989). ―Nature as Refuge in Children‘s Environments.‖ Children’s
Environments Quarterly 6(1): 7-12. Available from:
http://www.colorado.edu/journals/cye.
Kytta, M. (2003). Children in Outdoor Context: Affordances and Independent Mobility
in the Assessment of Environmental Child Friendliness. Helsinki University of
Technology, Espoo, Findland.
Kyttä, M. (2004). The Extent of Children‘s Independent Mobility and the Number of
Actualized Affordances as Criteria for Child-Friendly Environments. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 24, 179–198.
26
Kyttä, M. (2006). Environmental Child-Friendliness in the Light of the Bullerby Model.
In Spencer, Christopher & M. Blades (Eds.), Children and Their Environments
(pp. 141-158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leontjev, A. N. (1978). Activity, Consciousness, Personality. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall.
Lindholm, G. (1995). Schoolyards: The Significance of Place Properties to Outdoor
Activities in Schools. Environment and Behavior, 27(3), 259-293.
Lingwood, D. A. (1971). Environmental education through information-seeding: the
case of an `Environmental Teach-In'. Environment and Behavior, 3, 230-262.
Lipka, J., 1990. Integrating cultural form and content in one Yup‘ik Eskimo classroom:
a case study. Canadian Journal of Education 17, 18–32.
McDevitt, T. M., & Ormrod, J. E. (2002). Children Development and Education. New
Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Min, B., & Lee, J. (2006). Children's neighborhood place as a psychological and
behavioral domain. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 51-71.
Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2011, 31 January 2011 ). "Statistic." Retrieved 31
January, 2011, from http://www.moe.gov.my/?act=search&id=0&keyword
=statistik+murid+sekolah+rendah&lang=en.
Moore, R. C., & Wong, H. H. (1997). Natural learning: The life history of an
environmental schoolyard. Berkeley, CA: MIG Communications.
Moore, Roger C. (1989). "Before and after Asphalt: Diversity as an Ecological Measure
of Quality in Children's Outdoor Environments." In Bloch, M.N. and A.D.
Pellegrini, eds. The Ecological Context of Children's Play. New Jersey: Ablex
Publishing Corporation, 191-213.
Murdoch, K. (1993). Ideas for Environmental Education. Melbourne: Thomas Nelson
Australia.
Nabhan, G. and S. Trimble (1994). The Geography of Childhood. Boston: Beacon
Press.
Nor Fadzila Aziz, & Ismail Said. (2010). Children Use of Outdoor Environment: A
Review on the Trends and Influential Factors. Paper presented at the ASIA
Pacific International Conference on Environment-Behaviour Studies, Grand
Margherita Hotel, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia.
Ozdemir, A., & Yilmaz, O. (2008). Assessment of outdoor school environments and
physical activity in Ankara‘s primary schools. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 28, 287–300.
Pedersen, D. (1999). Dimensions of Environmental Competence. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 19(3), 303-308.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The Psychology of Child. New York: Basic Books.
Powell, M. (2007). The hidden curriculum of recess. Children, Youth and
Environments, 17(4), 86-106.
27
Reed, E. S. (1996). Encountering the World: Toward an Ecological Psychology.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Reyes-García, V., Kightley, E., Ruiz-Mallén, I., Fuentes-Peláez, N., Demps, K.,
Huanca, T., et al. (2010). Schooling and local environmental knowledge: Do
they complement or substitute each other? International Journal of Educational
Development, 30(3), 305-313.
Rickinson, M., Dillon, J., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M. Y., & Sanders, D. (2004).
A Review of Research on Outdoor Learning: Slough: National Foundation for
Educational Research and King‘s College London.
Robinson, B. & Wolfson, E. (1982). Environmental Education: A Manual for
Elementary Educators. New York: Teachers College Press.
Ruchter, M., Klar, B., & Geiger, W. (2010). Comparing the effects of mobile computers
and traditional approaches in environmental education. Computers & Education,
54(4), 1054-1067.
Samborski, S. (2010). Biodiverse or Barren School Grounds : Their Effects on Children.
Children, Youth and Environments, 20(2), 67-115.
Singal, N., & Swann, M. (2009). Children‘s perceptions of themselves as learner inside
and outside school. Research Papers in Education, 1–16.
Stanley, E. (2010) Monkey Brains and Monkey Bars: An Ecological Approach to the
Values of School Recess. Doctoral Dissertation, Environmental Studies, Antioch
University. Available from: http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi?acc_num=antioch
1274047228
Stapp, W. B. (1971). An environmental education program (K-12) based on
environmental encounters. Environment and Behavior, 3, 263-283.
Sternberg, R. & Kolligan, J. (Eds) (1990). Competence Considered. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Taylor, D., Stevens, E., Peregoy, J., Bath, B., 1991. American Indians, mathematical
attitudes, and the standards. Arithmetic Teacher 38, 14–21.
Titman, W. (1994). Special Places; Special People: The Hidden Curriculum of
Schoolgrounds. Surrey: World Wide Fund for Nature/Learning through
Landscapes.
Ward Thompson, C. (1995). School Playground Design: A projective Approach with
School Pupils and Staff. Landscape Research, 20, 24-140.
Wells, N. and G. Evans (2003). ―Nearby Nature: A Buffer of Life Stress Among Rural
Children.‖ Environment and Behavior 35(3): 311-330.
Wells, N. and K. Lekies (2006). ―Nature and the Life Course: Pathways from
Childhood Nature Experiences to Adult Environmentalism.‖ Children, Youth
and Environments 16(1): 1-24. Available from:
http://www.colorado.edu/journals/cye.
28
Young, K. (1990). Learning through Landscapes: Using School Grounds as an
Educational Resources. Winchester, Hampshire, United Kingdom: Learning
Through Landscapes Trust.
29
APPENDIX A
Research framework
ELEMENT / NATURE
Availability
Diversity
Dynamic
Complexity
Stimulating
Accessibility
DESIGN
Size
Form
Space
Feature
Connectivity
Context
POLICY
Rule and regulation
Management
Maintenance
Culture
CHILDREN’S
COMPETENCE FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL
LEARNING
DIMENSIONS OF
COMPETENCE:
Conscientious
Outdoor skills
Way finding
Knowledge
Practical skills
Resources conservation
DIMENSIONS OF
ENVIRONMENTAL LEARNING
Environmental knowledge and
understanding
Environmental action and
stewardship
Interaction and experience
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES DEPENDENT VARIABLES EXPECTED OUTCOMES
ACTION
Activity
Movement
Spatial pattern
Social interaction
Behaviour
PERCEPTION ON THE
LEVEL OF
AFFORDANCES
Perceived
Utilized
Shaped
S
C
H
O
O
O
L
G
R
O
U
N
D
C
O
M
P
O
N
E
N
T
S
30
APPENDIX B
Flowchart of research design
LITERATURE REVIEW
Affordances of children‘s
outdoor environment
School ground design and
children‘s development
School ground as site for
environmental learning
Quality of school ground for children‘s functioning (physical, social and
cognitive) and competence for environmental learning
DATA COLLECTION
Assessment of the school
ground element and design
Physical setting
Behavioural mapping
(activity, movement, spatial
pattern, etc.) using ArcGIS
Overt action
Perception on perceived affordances and
environmental learning
using survey questionnaire, interview, drawing and
photo-taking
Covert action
DATA ANALYSIS
DATA ANALYSIS
Inferential statistical
analysis (SPPS)
Content analysis (nVivo)
Overlapping spatial and
behavioural maps using ArcGIS
FINDING AND DISCUSSION
Affordances of school ground and children‘s competence for
environmental learning
Model of school ground design for children‘s
environmental learning at primary school in Malaysia
