children as change agents for - qut eprints · pdf filean action research case study in a...

CHILDREN AS CHANGE AGENTS FOR

SUSTAINABILITY:

An Action Research Case Study in a Kindergarten

Sharon Marie Stuhmcke

M. Ed (EC) (QUT) B. Tec (EC) (QUT)

ADCC (BCAE)

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Education

Queensland University of Technology

Faculty of Education

2012

Principal Supervisor Associate Professor Julie Davis

Associate Supervisor Associate Professor Lisa Ehrich

Children as Change Agents for Sustainability iii Sharon Stuhmcke EdD Thesis 2012

KEY WORDS

transformative education; early childhood education; environmental education;

education for sustainability; co-constructivism; critical theory; action research case

study; young children; kindergarten; project approach.

Children as Change Agents for Sustainability v Sharon Stuhmcke EdD Thesis 2012

ABSTRACT

At a time when global consumption and production levels are 25 percent higher

than the Earth’s sustainable carrying capacity, there are worldwide calls to find ways

to sustain the Earth for this and future generations. A central premise of this study is

that education systems have an obligation to participate in this move towards

sustainability and can respond by embedding education for sustainability into

curricula. This study took early childhood education as its focus due to the teacher-

researcher’s own concerns about the state of the planet, coupled with early childhood

education’s established traditions of nature-based and child-centred pedagogy.

The study explored the experiences of a class of kindergarten children as they

undertook a Project Approach to learning about environmental sustainability. The

Project Approach is an adaptation of Chard’s work which is situated within a

constructivist theoretical framework (Chard, 2011). The Project Approach involves

in-depth investigations around an identified topic of interest. It has three phases:

introductory, synthesising and culminating phase. The study also investigated the

learning journey of the classroom teacher/researcher who broadened her long-held

co-constructivist teaching approaches to include transformative practices in order to

facilitate curriculum which embedded education for sustainability. While co-

constructivist approaches focus on the co-construction of knowledge, transformative

practices are concerned with creating change.

An action research case study was conducted. This involved twenty-two children

who attended an Australian kindergarten. Data were collected and analysed over a

seven week period. The study found that young children can be change agents for

sustainability when a Project Approach is broadened to include transformative

practices. The study also found that the child participants were able to think

Children as Change Agents for Sustainability vi Sharon Stuhmcke EdD Thesis 2012

critically about environmental and sustainability issues, were able to create change in

their local contexts, and took on the role of educators to influence others’

environmental behaviours. Another finding was that the teacher-researcher’s

participation in the study caused a transformation of both her teaching philosophy

and the culture at the kindergarten. An important outcome of the study was the

development of a new curriculum model that integrates and has applicability for

curriculum development and teacher practice.

Children as Change Agents for Sustainability vii Sharon Stuhmcke EdD Thesis 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

KEY WORDS ......................................................................................................... iii ABSTRACT ..............................................................................................................v LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................xi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................xii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....................................................................................xiv CHAPTER ONE........................................................................................................1

The Research Interest .............................................................................................1 Early Childhood Education ................................................................................5 Early Childhood Education for Sustainability.....................................................8

Central Research Questions..................................................................................11 Significance of the Study .....................................................................................12 The Researcher ....................................................................................................13 Action Research...................................................................................................14

Data Collection ................................................................................................15 Research Ethics................................................................................................16

This Study’s Contribution to Scholarship and Professional Practice .....................17 Chapter Summary ................................................................................................18

CHAPTER TWO.....................................................................................................20

The Sustainability Challenge and Early Childhood Education ..............................20 The Sustainability Challenge................................................................................20

Economic sustainability............................................................................22 Social sustainability..................................................................................22 Political sustainability..............................................................................22 Environmental sustainability ....................................................................22

Responses to the Sustainability Challenge ........................................................23 Education’s Role in the Sustainability Challenge..................................................26 History of Environmental Education and Education for Sustainability..................30

Critical Theory and Environmental Education ..................................................32 Creating Change...........................................................................................34 Empowerment and Agency...........................................................................34 Critical Thinking ..........................................................................................35 Taking action ...............................................................................................36

Teaching approaches for education for sustainability................................36 Early Childhood Education ..................................................................................38

The Kindergarten’s Early Childhood Curriculum .............................................40 Co-constructivist Theory and Early Childhood Education.............................42 The Project Approach...................................................................................45 Documentation .............................................................................................47

Education for Sustainability and Early Childhood Education: Synthesising the Fields ...................................................................................................................49 Emerging Theoretical Underpinnings for Early Childhood Education for Sustainability .......................................................................................................54 Emerging Characteristics of Early Childhood Education for Sustainability...........59

The Project Approach in Early Childhood Education for Sustainability ............60 Conceptual Framework for this Study ..................................................................61

Experiential Learning.......................................................................................64

Children as Change Agents for Sustainability viii Sharon Stuhmcke EdD Thesis 2012

Problem-solving .............................................................................................. 65 Democratic Practice ........................................................................................ 66

The Conceptual Framework as a Theoretical Basis for the Study ................. 67 Chapter Summary................................................................................................ 68

CHAPTER THREE................................................................................................. 70

Methodology....................................................................................................... 70 Qualitative Research ........................................................................................... 70 Case Study .......................................................................................................... 71

The Kindergarten............................................................................................. 72 Action Research .................................................................................................. 75

Teacher Research ............................................................................................ 76 Teachers and Action Research......................................................................... 77 Research Participants....................................................................................... 80 Nested Research .............................................................................................. 81

The Action Research Study ................................................................................. 82 The Project Approach phases .................................................................. 85 The children’s roles ................................................................................. 87 The teacher’s roles .................................................................................. 87 The collaborative roles ............................................................................ 87

Data Collection and Analysis .............................................................................. 89 Participant observation ........................................................................... 90 Teacher reflections .................................................................................. 91 Photographs and PowerPoints................................................................. 91 Conversation transcripts and community of practice................................ 92 Curriculum plans, kindergarten newsletters, letters to parents and

management committee reports................................................................ 92 Documentation, children’s portfolios and artifacts .................................. 93 Parent emails........................................................................................... 93

Data Analysis ...................................................................................................... 94 Research Ethics ................................................................................................... 96 Qualitative Research Validity.............................................................................. 98 Research Limitations......................................................................................... 102 Chapter Summary.............................................................................................. 105

CHAPTER FOUR................................................................................................. 106

Findings and Discussion.................................................................................... 106 The Study’s Action Research Cycle................................................................... 106

Steps 1 and 2. Reflection and Raising Questions............................................ 107 Step 3. Planning to Seek Answers.................................................................. 112 Steps 4 and 5. Data Collection and Analysis for the Children’s Environment Project ........................................................................................................... 112

Introductory Phase (first two weeks).......................................................... 116 Playground plans (week one) ................................................................. 116 The rainforest collage (week one) .......................................................... 119 The nature hunt (week one).................................................................... 120 Beginning the class environment model (week two)................................ 121 Teacher reflection (at the end of the introductory phase) ....................... 123

Synthesising phase (three weeks)............................................................... 125 Recycling and nature conservation (weeks three and four)..................... 125

Children as Change Agents for Sustainability ix Sharon Stuhmcke EdD Thesis 2012

The rainforest puppet show (week five, 14/9/2010) .................................131 The environment model (continued)........................................................133 Teacher reflection (end of the synthesising phase) ..................................135

Culminating Phase (final two weeks)..........................................................137 Poster documentation .............................................................................137 The class book ........................................................................................138 The environment model (continued)........................................................139 Teacher reflection (end of the culminating phase)...................................140

Continuing Influence of the Children’s Environment Project ......................142 Children’s ongoing references to project learning ..................................142 The project’s influence on the red group.................................................142 Children’s end of year production ..........................................................143

Step 6: Meta Analysis of the Study and Identification of Themes ...............144 Young children can think critically about environmental sustainability

issues......................................................................................................144 Young children are able to create change in their local contexts.............145 Young children are able to take on the role of educators.........................145

Implications for teacher practice.................................................................146 Addressing Two Research Questions..........................................................149

Thinking of New Actions: The Study’s Implications ......................................155 Chapter Summary ..............................................................................................157

CHAPTER FIVE ...................................................................................................158

Concluding the Study.........................................................................................158 Summary of Previous Chapters ..........................................................................158 Research Question 3. The Teacher-Researcher’s Journey...................................159

Transforming My Teaching Philosophy and Practices ....................................159 Transforming Kindergarten Culture................................................................164

Key Findings......................................................................................................168 Theoretical Advancements .................................................................................170

Transformative Project Approach in Early Childhood Education Contexts .....171 Children as Change Agents ............................................................................173

Practical Advancement: Teacher Roles in Early Childhood Education for Sustainability .....................................................................................................174 Recommendations of the Study..........................................................................174

Education for Sustainability in Early Childhood.............................................174 Early Childhood Education should embrace Education for Sustainability .......175

Future Research .................................................................................................177 Implications for Researchers Working with Young Children ..........................178

Conclusion.........................................................................................................179 REFERENCES......................................................................................................181 APPENDICES.......................................................................................................208

Appendix A Guidelines for consulting with young children ...............................209 Appendix B Building Waterfalls: Shared Understandings...................................212 Appendix C Early Childhood Australia’s code of ethics related to research........213 Appendix D Teacher-researcher’s conference participation ................................214 Appendix E Roger Hart’s ladder of young people’s participation .......................215 Appendix F Teacher-researcher’s ethics statement .............................................216

Children as Change Agents for Sustainability x Sharon Stuhmcke EdD Thesis 2012

Appendix G Letter of permission and consent for parents and children.............. 218 Appendix H Kindergarten handbook excerpt ..................................................... 220 Appendix I August newsletter and letter to families .......................................... 221 Appendix J Poster documentation of the children’s environment project ........... 223 Appendix K Class book publication................................................................... 227

Children as Change Agents for Sustainability xi Sharon Stuhmcke EdD Thesis 2012

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Four dimensions of sustainable development (UNESCO, 2005)..………21 Figure 2. Evolution of EE approaches in policy ..…………………………………30 Figure 3. Early environmental education and contemporary EfS.…………………31 Figure 4. Objectivist, co-constructivist and critical views of learning .……………56 Figure 5. Conceptual framework .…………………………………………………62 Figure 6. Diagram representing the research project's nested approach...…………77 Figure 7. The study’s action research cycle .………………………………………83 Figure 8. The children's environment project ..……………………………………81 Figure 9. Quantitative and qualitative criteria for assessing research quality...……99 Figure 7. The study’s action research cycle .........................................................107 Figure 10. Class groups, staffing and attendance patterns for the kindergarten ......108 Figure 11. Sustainable practices at the kindergarten prior to the study ...…………104 Figure 12. Photos of the kindergarten’s physical environment ...............................109 Figure 13. Weekly overview of the fieldwork........................................................114 Figure 14. Photos of children’s artwork about the kindergarten playground...........117 Figure 15. Photo of child’s rainforest collage. .......................................................119 Figure 16. Photo of the initial stage of construction of the ‘environment model’ ...123 Figure 17. Photograph of children designing ‘water cleaning devices’ ..................127 Figure 18. Slide from daily PowerPoint – The Earth game children’s comments ...127 Figure 19. Photograph of a child using a small cup in the sandpit..........................130 Figure 20. Photograph of black satin bower bird puppet........................................131 Figure 21. Photograph of child’s design of a rubbish crane....................................132 Figure 22. Photographs of children’s drawings after rainforest puppet show..........133 Figure 23. Photograph of burrow hidden by trees. .................................................134 Figure 24. Photograph of the environment model with threaded canopy................140 Figure 5. Conceptual framework .........................................................................146 Figure 25. New model: ‘A transformative project approach’ .................................147 Figure 26. Environmentally sustainable practices before and after the study..........166 Figure 27. The influence of the kindergarten’s culture of change...........................167 Figure 5. Conceptual framework .........................................................................170 Figure 25. The transformative project approach ....................................................172

Children as Change Agents for Sustainability xii Sharon Stuhmcke EdD Thesis 2012

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ACARA Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority

C&K Creche and Kindergarten Association

DAP Developmentally Appropriate Practice

DEH Department of Environment and Heritage

DETA Department of Education, Training and the Arts

ECEfS Early childhood education for sustainability

ECE Early childhood education

EEC C&K early education consultant

EYLF Belonging, Being & Becoming. Early Years Learning Framework

EfS Education for Sustainability

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

RQ1 Research Question 1



UN United Nations

UNEP United Nations Environment Program

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

Children as Change Agents for Sustainability xiii Sharon Stuhmcke EdD Thesis 2012

STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet

requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the

best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously

published or written by another person except where due reference is made.

Signature __________________________________________________________

Date __________________________________________________________

Children as Change Agents for Sustainability xiv Sharon Stuhmcke EdD Thesis 2012

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study would not have been possible without the support of many people. To

each and all I am deeply indebted.

First and foremost I must thank my family. To my husband Brad and my

daughter Ashleigh, thank you for your enduring patience as I navigated my way

through this eight year journey. Without your belief in me, your understanding when

I was consumed with research, and your help when I needed it, I would not have

been able to complete this study. I love you both and appreciate your support more

than you know.

To my mother Joan Parish and my brother Lee Parish, thank you for proof-

reading and for technical support no matter the hour. Thank you Mum for worrying,

for printing and for collating. I’m sure you are as relieved as I am that this thesis is

now complete. I dedicate this thesis to you for teaching me to aim high, to see

obstacles as challenges that could be overcome, and to work hard for those goals

worth achieving.

To my supervisors, Associate Professor Julie Davis and Associate Professor Lisa

Ehrich, I could not have finished this thesis without your patient, professional and

ongoing support. I have benefitted and grown both academically and professionally

under your guidance. Thank you for your encouragement and mentorship.

To my work colleagues, I thank you for your assistance and shared enthusiasm

for this study. For the children in my classes over the years, especially those who

participated in my study, thank you for sharing your learning journeys with me.

Chapter 1: The Research Interest 1 Sharon Stuhmcke EdD Thesis 2012

CHAPTER ONE

The Research Interest

There can be few more pressing issues than the current state of the environment

and the consequences for humankind, especially children. The United Nations

Commission on Sustainable Development (2007) rates global consumption and

production levels as 25 percent higher than the earth’s sustainable carrying capacity

which means that humans are consuming resources at a rate that is 25 percent higher

than the Earth can sustain. Sustainability issues are not new. The United Nations,

through the 1987 World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED)

chaired by former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, alerted the

world over twenty years ago to the urgency of making progress toward sustainable

development. An agreed upon definition of sustainable development (referred to as

‘sustainability’ in Australia) remains an ongoing debate, it can be understood as the

need for humankind to share a responsibility for creating a healthy and sufficiently

resourced world today and for behaving in ways that do not compromise the ability

of future generations to meet their own needs for a healthy and sufficiently resourced

tomorrow (David & Gordon, 2007). While recognising that there are other

viewpoints on sustainability issues, this study is based on the moral stance just

expressed.

Climate change and global warming, aspects of the sustainability agenda, have

captured public and political interest. It is recognised here that there is ongoing

debate about climate change and global warming, for example the belief by some

sectors that the Earth is not warming, but rather experiencing ‘natural climate

variability’ (Sudhakara Reddy & Assenza, 2009, p. 2997). These authors also state

that “while the sceptics generally do not want to take action or want to postpone


measures on climate change, the supporters claim that action is needed right now”

(p. 2998). Rather than enter into the debate about whether or not climate change and

global warming is real, this study was undertaken from the viewpoint that we all

have a role to play in the move towards sustainability, beginning in early childhood.

Sustaining the planet involves sustaining political, social, environmental and

economic systems (Fien, 2004). UNDP’s 2007/2008 Human Development Report

advises that addressing today’s sustainability challenges is largely beyond the

capacity of individual countries; only concerted and coordinated international action

will suffice. Thus, sustainability is a far reaching issue encompassing more than the

current focus on global warming. Water quality and shortages, threatened species,

and decreasing health conditions are just a few of the related issues. Steady

improvements are necessary to ensure quality of life for all members of this and

future generations in ways that respect humankind’s common heritage and the planet

on which humankind lives (United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable

Development 2005-2014). The terms ‘sustainable development’ and ‘sustainability’

are used interchangeably throughout the literature and for the purposes of this study

the term ‘sustainability’ will be used.

I believe that sustainability is of such significance that education, beginning in

early childhood, must embed education for sustainability (EfS) into its practices in

order to assist the transition to a more sustainable future. Therefore the two major

fields from which this thesis draws are education for sustainability (EfS) and early

childhood education (ECE). The next section discusses these two fields of study,

and considers ways in which they might be successfully integrated.


Environmental Education and Education for Sustainability

Given the current state of the global environment and the urgency for action,

education, like other institutions of society, has an important role to play in

contributing to sustainability. Even though environmental education has been

around for more than thirty years – arguably with limited impact (Elliott & Davis,

2009) - the focus has now changed to education for sustainability. The Australian

Government Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) (2005) describes this

evolution as follows: in the 1970s, environmental education focused on learners

gaining knowledge about the environment; in the 1980s, the focus was on education

that occurred within the environment; in the 1990s, education focused on action-

oriented environmental education; and, the 2000s saw environmental education

evolve towards a much broader concept of sustainability. This latter encourages a

participatory, community approach to environmental and sustainability issues

(Australian Government DEH, 2005). This evolution is explained more fully in the

following chapter.

Although environmental education with its focus mainly on environmental topics

and issues remains important, it is not sufficient to deal with the broader issues of

living sustainably. It is no longer simply enough to ‘know’ about natural phenomena

and environmental issues; contemporary education needs to enable humankind to

‘do’. Environmental education, then, is now seen as a sub-field of the broader field

of education for sustainability. It is argued that general education must also change

to embrace education for sustainability in this broader sense. This contemporary

focus and approach is reiterated by UNESCO’s (2002) description of sustainable

development as “building the capacity to think in terms of ‘forever’ is a key task of

education” (para. 3). The broader focus involves the interdependent sustainability of


a complex set of economic, environmental, social and political systems (Fien, 2004),

thus matching the broad definition of sustainability presented earlier.

Education for sustainability “centres the learner in the inquiry process for

transformational change – in thinking, learning, action for the environment and

sustainability” (Lang, 2005, para.1). Informed by critical theory (Fien, 1993; Elliott

& Davis, 2009), contemporary education for sustainability acknowledges the role

education plays by focusing on processes of learning, participation and change

required to achieve the goals and meet the challenges of sustainability (Curriculum

Corporation, 2007; para 2). While sustainability continues to incorporate an

environmental focus, it also encourages a participatory approach to this and broader,

interdependent issues including social problems, local history, culture and political

knowledge (Hart, 1997). Teachers too need to be adequately equipped, together with

their children, to participate in positive change.

In the Australian context, the requirement for education for sustainability is

clearly recognised and enabled by policy. ‘The Australian National Action Plan for

Environmental Education for a Sustainable Future’ (Australian Government, DEH,

2000), for example, denotes the following principles for environmental education

(now called education for sustainability): it must involve everyone; be lifelong;

holistic, and; about connections, be practical, and in harmony with social and

economic goals (p. 3-4). It is argued in this study that education for sustainability

must also be integrated into all levels of education in order to facilitate effective

actions that ensure the longevity of all life forms. This could be achieved, as

suggested by UNESCO in its documentation on the ‘Decade for Education for

Sustainable Development’ (2005-2014), by embracing more innovative, effective

and transformative teaching and learning approaches and techniques. The argument


made here is that such transformative approaches should apply in early childhood

education as much as in all other educational levels. The following section discusses

early childhood education and its potential for educating for sustainability.

Early Childhood Education

Early childhood education (ECE) is generally seen as education that occurs for

young children aged between birth and eight years of age. For the purposes of this

study, the term early childhood education refers to kindergarten and before school

education that occurs prior to formal/compulsory schooling. It is widely recognised

that this time frame is the greatest and most significant period of human

development, often regarded as the foundation on which the rest of life is built

(Australian Government, DEH, 2005a). Although recognised as such a significant

period, early childhood education (prior to school entry) is non-compulsory in

Australia, and indeed in most parts of the world. In the Australian context, non-

compulsory early childhood education occurs in a variety of contexts including child

care centres, family day care, kindergartens and preschools. However different

facilities operate under varied curriculum guidelines, for varied amounts of time and

are administered and implemented by staff who hold varying qualifications, ranging

from TAFE (technical and further education) certificates to four year university

degrees. Each Australian state and territory also has different policies, guidelines

and requirements governing early childhood education.

However, in an effort to create cohesion within the early childhood sector, “in

December 2009, all Australian governments, through the Council of Australian

Governments (COAG), agreed to a partnership to establish a National Quality

Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care (‘National Quality

Framework’) for most long day care, preschool/ kindergarten, family day care and


outside school hours care services in Australia” (ACECQA, 2011, p. 3). The

National Quality Framework (2011), the Education and Care Services National Law

Act 2010 and the Education and Care Services National Regulations (2012) aim to

ensure quality of care and education and consistency across the Australian early

childhood sector.

Although, until recently there has been little common structure within the field of

early childhood, MacNaughton (2003) states that “early childhood educators act in

particular ways with young children and develop curriculum for them based on their

understandings of how children learn, how they make sense of their surroundings

and how they form relationships” (p.9). Furthermore, and despite the lack of

cohesion, early childhood education is seen as an increasingly important key to

social change and progress (OECD, 2006; Roopnarine & Johnson, 2005).

Two prevailing curriculum viewpoints are the American National Association for

the Education of Young Children’s Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP)

which supports the notion of children learning through play (Bredekamp, 1986;

Jacobs & Crowley, 2007), and child-centred pedagogy (Langford, 2010), both of

which are much revered and enduring early childhood educational practices.

Drawing on the seminal work of Swiss Psychologist Piaget (1951), for example,

early childhood educators plan play experiences that promote discovery and

development such as learning maths concepts through active, hands on manipulation

of blocks of various shapes, weights and sizes (Jacobs & Crowley, 2007). Planning

from children’s demonstrated interests is also a core feature of curriculum developed

from a DAP perspective (Jacobs & Crowley, 2007). For example, if children are

observed watching caterpillars in the playground, an interest area that provides


related books, posters and models may be planned as a way to extend and further

develop children’s learning about caterpillars.

Nevertheless, while DAP continues to influence and underpin teaching and

learning approaches to early childhood education within Australia, more

contemporary approaches challenge DAP to move away from curriculum that is

based solely on this Piagetian approach (Fleer, 1995). Rather than learning and

development occurring mainly through children’s engagement with materials, the

social context and environmental factors are now recognised as highly significant.

In other words learning is seen as occurring in social and environmental contexts

with children participating actively and co-constructing their learning

(MacNaughton, 2003). Indeed the belief that children co-construct meaning in social

contexts is central to much contemporary thinking about early childhood education

(Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace

Relations for the Council of Australian Governments, 2009; MacNaughton, 2003).

Co-constructivism, based on Vygotsky’s (1997) notion that children co-construct

knowledge in social contexts, has had a powerful influence on many early childhood

educators and their views on learning. The premise of co-constructivism is that

teachers and children co-learn, co-research and co-construct knowledge.

The Project Approach to young children’s learning, explained in more detail later,

falls under the umbrella of co-constructivism. It has been an important part of my

approach and philosophy for a number of years. However, with the challenges of

sustainability and the need for greater educational transformation, a co-constructivist

curriculum approach is now not considered to be enough. In recognition of this I

began to investigate teaching and learning approaches advocated by the

sustainability field and to consider how these might align with my longheld early


childhood teaching approach. In doing so I became increasingly aware that, as a

field, early childhood education has much to do if it is to address teaching and

learning that facilitates education for sustainability meaningfully for young children.

The following section explores the emerging field of Early Childhood Education for

Sustainability (ECEfS).

Early Childhood Education for Sustainability

A focus on learning in the natural environment has been a key part of early

childhood education for many decades, stemming from Froebel’s notion (Provenzo

& Eugene, 2008) of the ‘kindergarten’ (literally translated as children’s garden).

This provides a solid grounding for education for sustainability theoretically, though

environmental education in early childhood education has largely been implemented

through the gaze of a developmentalist approach (Edwards & Cutter-Mackenzie,

2011). For example, nature is often used as a resource, where children are

encouraged to learn about natural objects that may be found and displayed, or as a

setting, where children are encouraged to appreciate, play in, and conserve the

natural environment.

As a consequence, early childhood environmental education to date has focused

largely on ‘green’ issues or nature education in early childhood programs (Elliott &

Davis, 2009). For example, many early childhood classrooms contain a ‘nature

table’, a space where natural items are collected for children to observe, touch,

discuss and learn about. Early childhood teachers are renowned for pointing out

natural features within the environment to children, encouraging children to

appreciate natural phenomena such as observing chickens hatch and learning about

life-cycles. Many early childhood educators encourage children to use magnifying

glasses to observe features of insects and plants in the playground. They are also


very good at innovatively using recycled materials. While such educational

experiences have learning significance, by themselves they are not enough to

embrace the broader sustainability agenda discussed earlier. Environmental

education in early childhood education has not yet acquired the transformative

capabilities that other parts of the education systems, such as primary schools, have

attempted to take on board.

Therefore while education for sustainability has legitimacy in Australian State

and Territory school curricula, for example through the Australian Curriculum and

Reporting Agency (2012), it is lacking in most before-school education contexts.

Neither environmental education nor education for sustainability have been

uniformly incorporated into early childhood curricula in Australia and this lack of

coordination and cohesion about early childhood education for sustainability

continues to hamper its uptake (Davis & Elliott, 2003).

Contemporary early childhood education, though, is slowly beginning to shift

focus from environmental/nature education and to recognise the importance of

education for sustainability for young children. An international workshop in

Sweden entitled The Role of Early Childhood Education for a Sustainable Society

(May, 2007), affirmed that early childhood should be seen as the starting point for

education for sustainability (Burnett, 2008). This workshop contributed to United

Nations policy via the Gothenburg Recommendations on Education for Sustainable

Development (2008) which called “on governments, civil society and in particular

educators to prioritise processes that develop and strengthen education for

sustainable development” (para. 1). Elliott (2007) agrees with this thrust when she

states that “while governments and policy-makers have key roles in climate-change


regulation, building and nurturing ecologically sustainable communities must begin

with the education and care we provide” (p. 2).

Clearly, then, government policy is not enough to ensure a sustainable future.

Living sustainably needs to be an integral way of life experienced from birth where

the earliest years of education play a part. Young children are already aware of

issues such as global warming, water shortages, extreme weather events and

threatened species (Louv, 2006) and should be given opportunities to investigate

these. The Environmental Education for a Sustainable Future, National Action Plan

(Australian Government, DEH, 2000), made a significant first step in that it now

recognises non-formal education (Early childhood education being a non-formal

educational setting) as key to lifelong learning and, therefore, a natural and logical

starting place to embed education for sustainability (Tilbury and Wortman, 2004).

Early childhood education already shares many common elements with education

for sustainability including outdoor play, nature education, participation and concrete

learning (Pramling Samuelsson & Kaga, 2008). Furthermore, early childhood

education for sustainability represents an emergent area (New South Wales

Protection Authority, 2003) that is largely under-researched (Chawla & Flanders

Cushing, 2007; Davis, 2009). Pramling Samuelsson and Kaga (2008), convenors of

the 2007 workshop mentioned earlier, also report that there is very little research on

the role of early childhood education in sustainability. It is argued that undertaking

research and theorising about education for sustainability practices is necessary to

provoke thinking and discussion about how practitioners might best implement early

childhood education for sustainability. This is the space in which this study is set.

An approach that allows children to co-construct knowledge, participate and

exercise agency can facilitate education for sustainability within the early childhood


sector. Davis (2007) encourages early childhood educators to take up

“transformative education that values, encourages and supports children to be

problem-solvers, problem-seekers and action-takers in their own environments”

(p.2). Providing children with significant opportunities to participate in student-

driven learning is a key teaching methodology for facilitating such transformative

environmental learning (Meyers, 2006). This study made the argument that children

can take positive action for sustainability beginning in their own local contexts.

Specifically, the study sought to address early childhood education for sustainability

by exploring a teaching and learning approach that sought to connect children with

nature, assist them to co-construct knowledge about environmental and sustainability

issues, and to enable them to participate in positive change for sustainability.

Central Research Questions

The research questions underpinning this study were devised as a practitioner

response to concerns about the current state of the world and the recognition of the

potential for early childhood education to address these concerns. The questions

were:

1. How might a Project Approach facilitate learning for sustainability?

2. How do young children learn to be social agents for change through education

for sustainability?

3. What is the ‘learning journey’ of the teacher-as-researcher when co-

constructivist teaching approaches are extended to include transformative early

education?


Significance of the Study

This study is significant for three main reasons. First, it is significant because it

explored children as change agents. Transformative educational practices recognise

that children can shape their own futures. Suggestions made by both Davis (2010)

and Meyers (2006) are salient for this study. Meyers (2006) suggests engaging

learners in meaningful research and investigations into the natural environment. He

discusses the inclusion of critical thinking, analysis and action-taking with learners,

based on their investigations. He also points out that otherwise, changes in

environmental knowledge may not necessarily translate into pro-environmental

behaviour. Davis (2010) also advocates a transformative approach to education for

sustainability so that young children learn about and in the environment whilst also

learning about how to act for the environment.

Second, the study is significant because it explored the Project Approach as a

potentially transformative teaching and learning practice. The Project Approach is

situated in constructivist theory (Beneke & Ostrosky, 2009; Chard, 2011). The

‘broadening’ of the constructivist Project Approach was investigated because

education for sustainability is identified as requiring a transformative teaching and

learning approach (Davis, Rowntree, Gibson, Pratt & Eglington, 2005).

Third, the study is significant because it provided opportunities for me as a

researching practitioner to reflect on and broaden my longheld teaching approaches

and practices and to integrate transformative teaching and learning. By doing so, the

study contributed to the legitimacy of practitioner-based research (McNiff, Lomax &

Whitehead, 2003) and researching professional literature.


The Researcher

As the researcher in this study I refer to myself in the first person throughout. I

am an early childhood teacher who has taught in a range of early childhood contexts

for twenty years. I am a practitioner and advocate of approaches that place children

at the heart of teaching and learning, believing that such approaches allow

curriculum to be developed from children’s interests, where children build

knowledge for themselves and the teacher facilitates such learning, rather than

through direct transmission, where the children receive and are expected to retain

knowledge imparted from the teacher. I believe that learning has to have

significance for each child and that children are competent and capable enquirers and

problem-solvers. I also believe that learning which is initiated by children has more

meaning than teacher-imposed content and knowledge. From these personal

underpinnings to my teaching, I have developed an interest in the Project Approach

as a way to enact such beliefs.

A more recent personal concern about the future of the planet prompted my

interest in how Education for Sustainability could be meaningfully addressed by

adapting and extending my teaching approach. Thus, I also believe in providing

programs that foster environmental learning and awareness. Nevertheless, where

previously I had been pleased when children displayed environmental consciousness

during environmental learning, I had begun to question whether my teaching

approach enabled children to act for the environment. I recognised that my co-

constructivist approach lacked emphasis on action and creating positive

environmental change, which are tenets of education for sustainability.

I began to consider then, what teaching and learning approaches would enable

children to authentically act upon their environmental learning in ways that might


bring about positive change. These reflections caused me to reconsider my early

childhood teaching practices and to recognise their limitations. Although early

childhood education is well known for assisting young children towards constructing

meaningful knowledge, it often fails to give children a genuine role in decision-

making and creating change; it should also empower children to engage as active

participants in change, a view of education drawn from the critical approach

(MacNaughton & Williams, 2009). The Educational Doctorate (EdD)

accommodates such practitioner based reflection and research where the result is

research findings and implications that improve the workplace of the researcher and

contribute to the field of study.

As a practising teacher, I feel that classroom teachers have valuable insights to

offer fellow teachers. The Educational Doctorate is particularly useful as researchers

create ‘work-based’ research and opportunities to reflect upon and improve their

own practices. Thus, improving professional practice was an important goal of this

study in addition to the goal of providing young children with meaningful education

that resonates with the world in which they live.

Action Research

Due to the work-based nature of the study, and the desire to effect change through

education, an action research methodology was used. In action research, knowledge,

practice and development are not separated (Holly, Arhar & Kasten, 2009). Holly et

al. state that “action research involves an ethical commitment to improving society

(to make it more just), improving ourselves (that we may become more conscious of

our responsibility as members of a democratic society), and ultimately improving our

lives together (building community)” (p.31). Action research also focuses on

problem-solving (Fox, Martin & Green, 2007). As this study was concerned with


improving lives and the environment through sustainable practices, an action

research approach was therefore appropriate.

Action research is generally recognised as emancipatory in nature. Reason and

Bradbury (2001) describe the primary purpose of action research as “to liberate the

human body, mind and spirit in the search for a better, freer world” (p.2), rather than

primarily producing academic theories or theoretical knowledge, though these are

not mutually exclusive. Environmental education and education for sustainability

research are often undertaken by action research. Child-centred early childhood

teaching approaches, like the Project Approach used in this study, also incorporate

exploration of ideas and problem-solving. Therefore the use of action research

aligns with the two fields of interest.

Many teacher-researchers who are trying to make beneficial changes within their

own workplaces use action research case studies (Bassey, 2007). Stake (2005)

describes case studies as occurring when a researcher explores a program, an event,

an activity, a process or individual/s in depth. Each case is bound by time and

activity. In this study the ‘case’ was the research site – a kindergarten that employed

the Project Approach – which was used to investigate education for sustainability. In

this study children became involved in education for sustainability through learning

and teaching experiences that enabled them to achieve a sense of agency. Detailed

information was collected using various data collection methods that are briefly

described in the following section.

Data Collection

Data were qualitative in nature and included teacher reflections, curriculum plans,

children’s artefacts (drawings, artwork & portfolios), project documentation,

anecdotal records, student dialogues, daily slide-shows and photographs. The


keeping of children’s documentation (evidence of learning) encourages them and

teachers to monitor their ‘learning journeys’, to reflect and evaluate collaboratively.

The documents became a rich data source in this study. “When children are

permitted in those rare cases to become active participants telling their own story in

their own way, the research experience is often personally moving and meaningful

and the data provided rich and complex” (Grover, 2004, p.84). Due to the

‘emergent’ nature of this study additional sources of data were added later. These

were parent feedback through email and a class book created by the children.

Research Ethics

Research involving children is often regarded as risky and therefore requires

robust guidelines (Farrell, 2005). At all times this research study upheld all

governing research guidelines, obtained relevant ethical clearances and appropriate

permissions and ensured participant anonymity. I worked within the Queensland

University of Technology and Australian Government’s ‘National Statement on

Ethical Conduct in Human Research’ and recognised the delicate balance of

expanding research knowledge whilst protecting participants from harm and

exploitation (Farrell, 2005).

Children’s lives, including their research participation, are increasingly governed

by adult policies designed to protect children (Farrell, 2005). However, children are

increasingly being recognised as competent research participants (Clark, 2007), able

to consent and decline research participation (Farrell, 2005). In this study I

recognised the power differentials between adults and children and ensured that

children were seen as legitimised research players throughout the research cycle

(Farrell, 2005). Research participation, by children, can produce greater equity and

social justice (Farrell, 2005) by generating knowledge from the viewpoint of children


themselves. Therefore, participation was optional. Research ethics, pertaining to

this study, are discussed in more detail in Chapter Three.

This Study’s Contribution to Scholarship and Professional Practice

This study contributed to scholarship in three main ways. First, the study was

designed as a direct response to the current identified gap in research into early

childhood education for sustainability. Davis (2009) acknowledges the emerging

interest in early childhood education for sustainability and also identifies the need for

research to underpin the field as it expands.

Second, the study contributed to scholarship because it built upon contemporary

co-constructivist early childhood approaches by incorporating insights from critical

theory. The key elements of creating change, critical thinking, empowerment and

agency - central themes of critical theory and education for sustainability - were the

focus (Elliott & Davis, 2009). This was undertaken to develop a more

transformative approach to early childhood education. A conceptual framework that

combined these key insights and theoretical perspectives was advanced and is

discussed further in Chapter Two. This research explored and provided insights into

the role that young children can have in the construction of their own knowledge and

their potential role in creating change in relation to the issues involved in education

for sustainability.

Third, and in terms of contribution to professional practice, this study provided

research findings that may have important general or broader implications for early

childhood practitioners and curriculum developers. Early childhood education for

sustainability has been slow in uptake partly because there are are only a few

practical Australian and international examples of how teachers are addressing

education for sustainability for children in before school contexts. This study, then,


provides research evidence about practical ‘ways to do’ education for sustainability

in early childhood settings by exploring action-orientated, participatory approaches

such as the Project Approach. This approach to teaching and learning is explained in

more detail in Chapter Two. Information about the practicalities and difficulties of

developing such an approach is presented and may contribute to other teachers’

understanding about the field.

To summarise, this study contributed to scholarship by: providing a direct

response to the identified gap in research into early childhood education for

sustainability; building upon contemporary early childhood curricula, and;

contributing to the research site, to the fields of early childhood education and

education for sustainability, as well as the broader education field by providing an

examplar of ‘ways to do’ Education for Sustainability in Early Childhood Education.

Chapter Summary

This introductory chapter has highlighted the rationale for the study. The fields of

sustainability and education have been discussed, where it was argued that education

for sustainability needs to begin in early childhood. The need for research to

investigate the fusion of education for sustainability and early childhood education

was established. From this, the research questions were developed. The research

was explained as a direct response to the emergent nature of early childhood

education for sustainability.

This study is supported by the work of Davis (2007), and Pramling Samuelsson

and Kaga (2008) who suggest that the field of early childhood education for

sustainability can advance through the initiation of research projects targeted at the

early childhood field. The study responds to this identified research gap and to the


calls made by various international and national reports recommending that all

sectors of society be engaged in meeting the challenge of sustainability.

This first chapter, then, has provided a brief overview of the study. The second

chapter explores literature related to the research interests of early childhood

education and education for sustainability. The study’s conceptual framework is also

explained. Chapter Three details the study’s methodology which was action research

case study. Chapter Four outlines the study’s two layers of analysis and discussion.

The first layer referred to is the children’s environment project which took place

over a seven week period. The second layer referred to is the meta-analysis of key

themes that arose from the data. Two of the three research questions are addressed

in this chapter. Chapter Five discusses the third research question before providing a

synthesis and conclusion to the study.

Chapter 2: The Sustainability Challenge and Early Childhood Education 20 Sharon Stuhmcke EdD Thesis 2012

CHAPTER TWO

The Sustainability Challenge and Early Childhood Education

The purpose of this chapter is twofold. First, literature related to the research

interest is explored in order to provide a rationale for the study. The first part of this

chapter outlines the sustainability challenge and discusses education’s role in

addressing sustainability and, in particular, the role of early childhood education.

Following this is a synthesis of the two fields: early childhood education and

education for sustainability. Second, a conceptual framework is proposed and

explained, providing the study’s theoretical underpinnings.

The Sustainability Challenge

The past two hundred years have been characterised by growth in population,

wealth, knowledge and human domination of nature (McMichael, 2006b). Such

developments, while offering great advantages, have contributed to current human

cultures, technologies and behaviours that are not environmentally sustainable; the

natural world cannot keep up. McMichael (2006b), a Professor of population

health at the Australian National University and Australian Fellow of the National

Health and Medical Research Council, describes the Earth’s natural systems as

overloaded by human production, consumption and waste generation as evidenced

by climate change, ozone depletion, nutrification of the biosphere, acidification of

the oceans, accelerating loss of species and freshwater shortages. Consequently,

sustainability is now firmly etched on society’s agenda and is a rapidly evolving

crisis requiring urgent response (McMichael, 2006b; McMichael, Butler & Folke,

2003).


In its Initial Assessment of Sustainability Performance and Opportunities

questionnaire, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (nd) defines

sustainability as:

A process of continual improvement driven by efforts to minimise resource consumption and waste generation, improve environmental quality and well-being, and adhere to social imperatives such as equal opportunities, recognition and respect of gender issues, abolition of child labour etc. Any actions contributing to this process for example, reduction of energy or paper use or recycling, are referred to as ‘sustainability activities’ (para. 8).

Figure 1. Four Dimensions of Sustainable Development (UNESCO, 2005)

Sustainability can be thought of as ‘thinking about forever’ (UNESCO, 2002).

Thinking about forever encompasses more than environment, conservation and

global warming. As demonstrated by Figure 1, it involves working towards a world

that is ecologically, socially, economically and politically sustainable (Fien, 2004;

Earth Charter, 2000). Nature, society, economy and politics play complex and

interdependent roles (Fien, 2004; McMichael 2006a). Thus, quality of life cannot be

sustained or improved while the environment continues to be degraded. The UN’s

Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development

(2009) states that “the achievement of sustainable development requires the


integration of its economic, environmental and social components at all levels,

facilitated by continuous dialogue and action in global partnership, focusing on key

sustainable development issues” (para 2). Descriptions of these dimensions

(economic, social, political and environmental sustainability), as depicted in Figure

1, follow.

Economic sustainability refers to the livelihood for people, jobs and income

(UNESCO, 2005). Recent assessments of the ongoing economic crisis increasingly

highlight the deteriorating social and political fallout in the least developed countries

and middle-income countries (UN, 2009). Although there are signs that the worst of

the global financial crisis might be over, there remain significant challenges with

employment, financial services and potential economic defaults by some countries.

Social sustainability concerns human rights issues and people living together in

culturally appropriate ways (UNESCO, 2005). Issues that concern this dimension

include democratic governance, poverty reduction, crisis prevention and recovery,

environment, energy and HIV/AIDS in an effort to improve global sustainability

(UNDP, 2012). Fien (2004) describes social sustainability in terms of “systems

which provide ways for people to live together peacefully, equitably and with respect

for human rights and dignity” (p.185).

Political sustainability places a vital role on political systems. Its goal is for

power to be exercised fairly and democratically through political systems (Fien,

2004; UNESCO, 2005). Politically sustainable systems would base social and

economic decisions upon environmental impacts (Fien, 2004; UNESCO, 2005).

Political sustainability is concerned with politics, policies and decision-making.

Environmental sustainability recognises the imperative of healthy natural

environments for supporting all life systems both human and non-human, including


air, soil, water and food (UNESCO, 2005). It is concerned with the conservation of

natural systems to ensure that all life forms are utilised and protected in ways that do

not compromise quality of life for future generations (Fien, 2004). Such a balance is

yet to be achieved. McMichael (2006b) describes this as a threat that is poorly

recognised and that human understanding of the issues are basic at best and limited

in scope. To put it frankly, current human living patterns cannot be sustained

(Australian Government, 2009). In order to ensure sustainability, UNESCO (2002)

states that humankind must learn how to anticipate the consequences of their actions,

envision a sustainable future and create the steps needed to achieve this vision.

Responses to the Sustainability Challenge

Rather than there being positive international responses and actions around

sustainability, humanity’s most recent past indicates that problems caused by

unsustainable patterns of living are increasing. UNEP’s (2011) Keeping track of our

changing environment publication reports that limited progress on environmental

issues has been achieved. This publication further reports that: carbon emissions

continue to rise; the global mean temperature has increased by 0.4 degrees celsius

between 1992 and 2010; oceans are warming and becoming more acidic; the sea

level continues to rise; forest areas have decreased by 300 million hectares since

1990; renewable energy currently accounts for only 13% of global energy supply;

biodiversity in the tropics has declined by 30%; human losses and economic damage

from natural disasters show an upward trend, and the number of natural disasters is

increasing. In summary, the UNEP (2011) states that:

Maintaining a healthy environment remains one of the greatest global challenges. Without concerted and rapid collective action to curb and decouple resource depletion and the generation of pollution from economic growth, human activities may destroy the very environment that supports economies and sustains life (p. iv).


Concerns about the state of the planet have been acknowledged through recent

agreements and reports for which international cooperation has been sought. One

such agreement was the Kyoto Protocol ratified by then Australian Prime Minister,

Kevin Rudd, in December, 2007. A further report released in Australia, The

Garnaut Climate Change Review (2008), again identified the significant

consequences of unsustainability and urged timely attention. Similarly, the Stern

Report (2008) in the United Kingdom stressed the importance of quick and strong

international action. More recently the Framework Convention on Climate Change

(United Nations) was held in Copenhagen in December 2009. This international

meeting resulted in the ‘Copenhagen Accord’ which recognises climate change as

one of humankind’s greatest challenges. However, this meeting failed to achieve a

binding international agreement. Common issues raised in these reports and

proposals include climate change and the reduction in basic elements for living such

as food, water, health and environmental quality. Collectively, they call for action to

reduce climate change, increase energy efficiency, use clean power and foster the

development of sustainable living patterns.

Some significant initiatives commenced and some progress was made, for

example the Australian Government’s Clean Energy Future which includes the

introduction of a carbon tax from July 2012 as a direct response to climate change

(Australian Government, 2012); however, the scale of effort is still overshadowed by

the scope of the problem (Centre for Environment & Sustainability, 2009) and the

consequences of continuing the currently inadequate responses to sustainability are

worldwide. Humanity can no longer afford a passive attitude towards the health of

the planet and societies must respond. At a Rio+20 (UN Convention on Sustainable

Development, Rio De Janeiro, 2012) side event UNESCO (2012) reported that:


Moving towards sustainable development cannot be achieved by political agreements, financial incentives or technological solutions alone. To safeguard the natural environment and promote greater global equity, we need a fundamental change in the ways we think and act. This can only be achieved if all individuals and societies are equipped and empowered by knowledge, skills and values as well as heightened awareness to drive such change

(para. 1). While world leaders and policy-makers have a pivotal role in helping to address

sustainability issues, it is argued in this study that to achieve sustainable futures

sustainable practices must become an embedded way of life for all citizens beginning

in early childhood. The problems and impacts of unsustainable living will be

greatest for children who grow up to inherit the problems left by previous

generations. Thus, children need to be equipped to face the challenges of the future,

as well as contribute, alongside adults, to current improvements.

Children have the right to a sustainable future. It is argued that sustainability is

about creating a healthy, safe and secure future for every child and that giving

children agency over their own futures is a fundamental human right. Pramling

Samuelsson and Kaga (2008) extrapolate on children’s rights by stating that “every

child has the right to adequate care, learning, development and protection, and a

sustainable society is where everyone’s rights are recognised, respected and

fulfilled” (p.14). Should current patterns of unsustainable living continue, it is

children who have the most to lose (Lowe, 2007; Davis, 2007b) as they are amongst

the most vulnerable and will be around longer to bear the compounding impacts of

current unsustainable ways of living. The education sector can make potentially

significant contributions to sustainability, as discussed in the next section.

Within the Australian context, creating a sustainable future is described by the

Australian Government’s Department of Environment and Heritage (2005b) as:

… an essential response to the current state of the world’s ecosystems. ‘Sustainability’ acknowledges the economic, social and political pressures that


can inhibit or support the capacity of individuals, communities or the nation to properly care for the environment. Sustainability also seeks to promote stewardship of the environment, encouraging everyone to assume the responsibility of being a caretaker or custodian for the environment (p. 4).

Education’s Role in the Sustainability Challenge

Education has a responsibility to teach children to engage positively in their

current and future lives (Johansson, 2009; McMichael, 2006b). The 1977 Tbilisi

Declaration (UNESCO, 1977), which was the product of the world’s first

intergovernmental conference on environmental education, describes environmental

education as having the aim of enabling learner understanding about environmental,

ecomonic, political and ecological interdependence. The Tbilisi Declaration (1977)

advocated for problem and action-oriented approaches, and for making

environmental education lifelong and future-oriented. Education for sustainability

aims to develop skills that enable children to participate in the transition to

sustainability (Fien, 2004). Furthermore, educating children is seen as part of the

solution to environmental problems as children may not only take on sustainable

practices as habits, they may also have intergenerational influence on family and the

wider community (Ballantyne, Connell & Fien, 2006).

Educational systems are increasingly seen as having an obligation to teach about

how human actions impact on the planet, quality of life and health, as well as helping

to promote hope and find positive solutions to counteract this issue. This obligation

is now recognised as a cross-curricular priority in Australia’s national curriculum

(Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2012). It

can be argued that not teaching children about the consequences of unsustainable

human behaviours on the environment is irresponsible (Hydon, 2007; Young, 2007).

Children not only need to know about sustainability, but they also need to be


empowered to act on this knowledge and to bring about positive change for

sustainability.

The values and principles that support sustainability, therefore, should form the

underlying principles of education for sustainability (Curriculum Corporation, 2007).

This is emphasised by UNESCO (2002) in its documentation for the Decade of

Education for Sustainable Development (2005-2014). The underpinning values are

of respect: respect for others in the present and for future generations, and respect for

the planet and what it provides. The Decade of Education for Sustainable

Development (DESD) seeks to challenge humans to adopt new behaviours and

practices that will sustain life on the planet, human and non-human. UNESCO states

that:

The goal of the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development is to integrate the principles, values, and practices of sustainable development into all aspects of education and learning. This educational effort will encourage changes in behaviour that will create a more sustainable future in terms of environmental integrity, economic viability, and a just society for present and future generations (paras 1 & 2).

While the importance of education to society’s well-being and prosperity is well

recognised (Australian Government, Department of Environment, Water, Heritage &

Arts, 2009), it is argued here that the current thrust of mainstream education is

economic (Sterling, 2001) rather than the recognition that people and nature are

interdependent (Elliott & Davis, 2009; Sterling, 2001). In other words, education

favours the economic dimension (Figure 1) at the expense of social and

environmental dimensions (Fien, 1993). Sterling (2001) further argues that this view

is informed by fundamentally mechanistic worldviews that are largely ignorant of

the sustainability issues that increasingly impact on people’s lives. Education for

sustainability challenges this dominant economic paradigm (Chapman, 2004), and

the educational responses that this has generated. Formal, informal and non-formal


education and learning processes for sustainability need to be strengthened and

prioritised within the education sector (The Centre for Environment & Sustainability,

2009). As Fien (2004) states:

The aim of education for sustainability is to develop skills that can enable all citizens and, through them, our social institutions, to play a role in the transition to sustainability. As such, it encompasses a vision for society that is not only ecologically sustainable but also socially, economically, and politically sustainable. Thus, education for sustainability involves approaches to teaching and learning that integrate goals for conservation, social justice, appropriate development and democracy into a vision and a mission of personal and social change (p.186).

This is a broad agenda, somewhat at odds with educational imperatives focused

on employment and work skills. Stevenson (2007) describes classrooms and schools

as not intended to develop critical thinkers or problem-solvers but rather, they

reproduce existing social conditions. Nevertheless, a number of recent initiatives

have contributed to the development of education for sustainability in Australian

education. It is important to note, however, that these initiatives have originated

from the environmental field rather than from the education field. These Australian

Government initiatives include: Living Sustainably: the Australian Government's

National Action Plan for Education for Sustainability (Australian Government,

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population & Communities,

2000), the National Environmental Education Network (established in 2001), the

Australian Research Institute in Education for Sustainability (ARIES) established in

2004, the National Action Plan for Sustainable Development (Australian

Government, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population &

Communities, 2007), and the Australian Sustainable Schools Initiative (Australian

Government, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population &

Communities, 2008). While these initiatives continue to show growth in policy


development around sustainability, the reality is that action based on these policies

has been inadequate.

Most recently, the Australian Government (2009) released Living Sustainably, its

National Action Plan for Education for Sustainability, a second action plan which

“builds on the foundation laid by the first plan released in 2000 and represents a

significant contribution to Australia's participation in the United Nations Decade of

Education for Sustainable Development, 2005-2014” (para. 7). This plan aims to

equip all Australians with the knowledge and skills to live sustainably. The

framework has four key strategies that respond to the needs and priorities of

education for sustainability. These are: demonstrating Government leadership in

education for sustainability, reorienting education systems to a culture of

sustainability, fostering sustainability in business and industry, and harnessing

community spirit to act (Australian Government, 2009). The principles of education

for sustainability, as defined by the Australian National Action Plan, are summarised

as: transformation and change, lifelong learning for all, systems thinking –

interconnected environmental, economic, social and political systems; envisioning a

better future, critical thinking and reflection, participation and creating partnerships

for change (Australian Government, 2009). This action plan, in particular, provides

guidelines for teachers across Australia as they engage with the National curriculum

and its sustainability focus. The plan will be instrumental in guiding the uptake of

education for sustainability and reorienting existing environmental education

practices. The next section looks at education for sustainability and environmental

education in more depth.


History of Environmental Education and Education for Sustainability

This section examines the history of education for sustainability, explains its

theoretical underpinnings and discusses its characteristics. Environmental education,

the precursor of education for sustainability, has had a short and rapidly evolving

history, as the change in terminology reflects.

It is argued in this thesis, however, that a contemporary conceptualisation of

education for sustainability is now required. The current sustainability agenda

challenges the earlier focus of environmental education to move beyond nature

learning and individual action-taking, such as planting trees, towards a more

participatory and decision-making approach (Australian Government, 2005a). This

shift in focus is reflected in Figure 2 (Australian Government, Department of the

Environment & Heritage, 2005a).

Figure 2. Evolution of EE Approaches in Policy (Australian Government

Department of the Environment & Heritage, 2005a, p. 26).

In the 1970s environmental education (EE) focused mainly on knowledge

acquisition, especially knowledge about natural systems such as the carbon or water

cycle. In the 1980s, approaches to environmental education encouraged

environmental and nature experiences, that is a great deal of teaching and learning

occurred within the natural environment. In the 1990s, environmental education

Evolution of Environmental Education Approaches in Policy

1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s About In For Sustainability (knowledge) (experience) (action) (participation)


encouraged action for the environment such as tree planting and waste management

with approaches that began to promote sustainability through participation. Such

action-oriented approaches were aimed at encouraging learners to be both reflective

of and responsible for their own actions in relation to the environment. In the 2000s,

approaches to education for sustainability encourage transformative teaching and

learning where children are deeply involved in decision-making and are encouraged

to work with their broader communities to enact positive environmental, social and

economic change.

The following diagram (Figure 3), adapted from Hart (1997), also demonstrates

the evolution of environmental education focused on the natural environment

(indicated by green) which has broadened to become education for sustainability,

which includes the environmental focus but has additional foci on social problems,

local history and culture, political knowledge and aesthetic appreciation of the

environment, indicated by turquoise. The second oval around the ‘environmental’

oval is both turquoise and green to indicate its historical significance and continuing

importance within sustainability.

Political Ecological

EconomicSocial

Traditional

environmental

education

Contemporary

education for

sustainabilityEnvironmental

Figure 3. Early environmental education and contemporary education for

sustainability (adapted from Hart, 1997, p.59).


A criticism of environmental education is that, since its inception, it has struggled

to become mainstream, mandatory and of high status within the Australian education

system. Although increasing in importance, education for sustainability is still not

considered an integral component of education (Australian Government, 2009) as

evidenced by the fact that most recent initiatives emerge from Departments of

Environment and not from Departments of Education. Nevertheless, education for

sustainability has gained legitimacy in Australian State and Territory school

curricula through Studies of Society and Environment and, more recently, through

the Australian national curriculum. However, the presence of education for

sustainability, in early childhood contexts and curriculum, is less evident (Edwards

& Cutter-Mackenzie, 2011). Early childhood education for sustainability remains an

emergent area with meagre research (Davis, 2009). As a consequence, appropriate

education resources and education/excursion venues designed to meet the specific

needs of young children, are generally lacking (Davis & Elliott, 2003). This lack of

application, coordination and cohesion within the field of early childhood education

for sustainability is unlikely to be resolved while research and policy in the field

remains limited (Davis, 2009).

Critical Theory and Environmental Education

As mentioned in the introduction, education for sustainability, particularly as

practised in Australia, has been informed largely by critical theory (Fien, 1993;

Elliott & Davis, 2009). This is unsurprising given that sustainability is concerned

with creating social change. Critical theory has been informed by various discourses

and theoretical insights that endeavour to find new ways of understanding power,

oppression and their impact on humanity, as well as ways to bring about change

(Freire, 1972; Habermas, 1971; McLaren & Kincheloe, 2007). Key theorists include


Marx, Horkheimer, Adorno and Habermas of the Frankfurt school (Crotty, 1998),

Freire and Giroux.

Critical theorists question educational knowledge and practices that serve to

reproduce the status quo rather than question and explore issues including power,

justice, social class, ethnicity and equality (Giroux, 1983; Sung, 2007). Giroux

(1983) describes critical theory as encouraging the development of critical skills that

lead to positive change and opportunities for autonomy. Critical theorists view

educational facilities, such as schools, as inextricably linked to issues involving

power, gender and race, and inequality where children are shaped through

standardised curriculum and processes (McLaren, 2003). Giroux (1983) states that:

Unlike traditional and liberal accounts of schooling, with their emphasis on historical continuities and historical development, critical theory points educators towards a mode of analysis that stresses the breaks, discontinuities and tensions in history, all of which become valuable in that they highlight the centrality of human agency and struggle while simultaneously revealing the gap between the society as it presently exists and society as it might be (p.30).

Critical theory is ‘suspicious’ of the constructed meanings that culture passes on

to us. These constructed meanings reproduce existing power structures, inequities

and social injustices (Crotty, 1998; Giroux, 2006). Gough (1997) describes a

‘socially critical curriculum’ where children are engaged in social practices and

structures immediately, not just prepared for later participation (in adulthood). This

form of curriculum is characterised by active and experiential learning where

children are encouraged to think critically and are empowered to shape their own

lives. A socially critical curriculum is based on the social framework of the learner

with the teacher as the coordinator with an emancipatory aim to involve children in

negotiations.


Creating Change

Critical theorists are also concerned with creating social change; finding better

ways to think and behave (MacNaughton & Hughes, 2009) with the goal of bringing

about positive change. For example questioning or thinking differently, in the

education context, potentially leads to acting differently, to engage and to be

accountable (Giroux, 2006). Marshall and Rossman (1999) describe critical theorists

as increasingly demanding that research have liberatory potential. As Crotty (1998)

explains, critical theory seeks to change a situation whereas traditional theory

reflects a current situation.

This study features change as a recurrent theme. It is argued here that children

and teacher understandings and participation are enhanced by insights from critical

theory. For the purposes of this study then, critical theory contributes the core

concepts of empowerment and agency, critical thinking and taking action. The aim

of the study was to create change in the teacher-researcher’s own practices so that

education for sustainability became an integral component of my early childhood

education practices, where young children could act as agents for change in

proactive ways for the environment. Underpinning these changes were challenges to

the status quo of my own teaching philosophy and practices.

Empowerment and Agency

Agency is concerned with empowerment, shared decision-making and action-

taking (Hazer Sancar & Can Servcan, 2010). In order to meet the sustainability

challenge, it is imperative to implement teaching approaches that encourage

children’s agency, empowerment, shared decision-making and action-taking.

Pramling Samuelsson and Kaga (2008) believe society urgently requires new kinds

of education that will help prevent further degradation of the planet and will foster


responsible stewardship and contributions to a just and peaceful world. Fien (2004)

states that “education for sustainability requires approaches to teaching and learning

that enhance knowledge and understanding, promote ethical and critical reasoning,

as well as motivate and equip young people to participate in community affairs”

(p.193), rather than teaching approaches that merely serve to replicate existing social

and cultural conventions. Developing integrated education for sustainability in early

childhood requires changed practices from the traditional environment and nature

focus to more participatory engagement. This means enabling young children to

exercise agency, it requires change in power dynamics and teaching and learning

practices. This is discussed next.

MacNaughton and Williams (2009) state that “to empower means to give others

the power (or ability) to do something” (p. 311). These authors point out that

empowerment involves people who have power giving that power to others who do

not have power; a transfer of power from the powerful to the powerless, this is

necessary in situations where an unequal distribution exists. They describe this

power as cultural, political, economic or social between people. McLaren (2003)

defines empowerment as a process where children learn to question and acquire

strategies to transform rather than conform. As a teaching technique, empowerment

is associated with critical, transformative, anti-bias or emancipatory approaches to

education (MacNaughton & Williams, 2009).

Critical Thinking

Thinking critically is seen as being grounded in critical theory (Hoepper & Vick,

2004). Tilbury and Wortman (2004) discuss thinking critically as a process that

helps to uncover how culture has shaped human values and beliefs. These authors

also point out that critical thinking does not mean being critical in relation to


sustainability; it is a much more profound process involving deep examinations of

power, consumption and the root causes of unsustainability. Critical thinking

involves critiquing, analysing and engaging with knowledge rather than mere

acceptance (Giroux, 2003) and allows better understanding (MacNaughton &

Hughes, 2009). Tilbury and Wortman (2004) state that:

Critical thinking involves asking deeper questions about the world we live in, and answering them in ways that reveal how our social, political and economic

structures and processes might be changed to move towards sustainability (p.34).

Taking action

Roe (2007) describes children as often disempowered from decision-making and

action-taking processes as they are viewed as ‘citizens in waiting’ rather than as

participants. Actively addressing sustainability in early childhood education

contexts has the potential to improve lives now as well as in the future, as do

teaching and learning approaches that empower children to be agents of change.

Transformative education approaches support children to take action in their own

environments (Davis, 2010). Young children are encouraged to “…challenge

unsustainable thinking and practices, and [be] include[d] in putting [their] ideas into

actions” (Davis, 2010, p.37).

Teaching approaches for education for sustainability should include democratic,

innovative and participatory strategies. Lang (2005) describes effective education

for sustainability as centering the learner in the learning process for transformational

change in thinking, learning and proactive environmental action. The United

Nation’s Decade for Education for Sustainable Development (DESD, 2005-2014)

suggests enhancing existing educational approaches by implementing innovative and

active teaching and learning. Hence, it promotes interdisciplinary and holistic

learning, rather than subject-based and values-based learning, and critical thinking


rather than transmissive forms of learning. It also supports multi-method approaches

including word, art, drama, debate, participatory decision-making and learning about

locally relevant information. Education for sustainability also involves approaches

to teaching and learning that integrate goals for conservation, social justice,

appropriate development and democracy through personal and social change and

empowerment (Fien, 2004). This represents a distinct broadening of the foci of

earlier environmental education practices.

Teachers are integral to this process because of their significant influences on

children (Pramling Samuelsson & Kaga, 2008). Teaching approaches need to

encourage participation, action, critical thinking and empowerment. Hopwood

(2007) states that “if we are to understand how environmental learning takes place,

and what its outcomes are, we must pay greater attention to the role of the learner as

an active agent in environmental education” (p.462). Hopwood also states that

children can imbue learning experiences with environmental significance even when

none was intended. It is in the early childhood period that children develop their

basic values, attitudes, skills, behaviours and habits, which may be long lasting and

may, therefore, have enormous potential to foster values, attitudes, skills and

behaviours that also support sustainability (Pramling Samuelsson & Kaga, 2008). In

this study it is argued that in early childhood children can also develop action taking.

Taking action is a key feature of education for sustainability. Children take action

when they engage in transformative teaching and learning. The study aimed at

maximising children’s participation and decision-making, in other words,

encouraging children to take action for the environment and sustainability.

Within transformative teaching and learning approaches the teacher is engaged in

a continual cycle of reflective practice and evaluation alongside the children.


Teachers who operate within a transformative framework provide children with

opportunities to follow open-ended and self-directed paths of learning which make

links with children’s experiences and issues, explore alternative ways of thinking

about issues and give children power (MacNaughton, 2003). As Fien (2004) states:

Whatever sustainable development themes and topics are adopted, or whatever curriculum structures are adopted, the teacher’s beliefs and attitudes, together with the teaching strategies chosen, will significantly affect the nature of students’ learning experiences and the objectives achieved. Such choices and attitudes determine whether or not curriculum plans reproduce the existing social and cultural mores, or contribute to empowering people for participation in civil society, as do the styles of communication in and beyond the school (p.193).

As discussed earlier, early childhood education has been slow to respond to

sustainability or to engage with education for sustainability in the ways discussed

above. The field of early childhood is yet to develop a comprehensive and cohesive

approach to education for sustainability. There are some exemplars where education

for sustainability has become an embedded component within early childhood

practice. However, these exemplars are discussed later in this chapter. These are the

exceptions rather than the rule. The Australian Government (2009) recognises that

research is required in order to identify best practice and to guide policy

development for educational responses to sustainability issues. It is suggested, in

this study, that this process should begin in early childhood education.

Early Childhood Education

Unlike education for sustainability, early childhood education in Australia has a

long and evolving history spanning more than one hundred and fifty years. It has

been influenced by a number of theories and approaches, particularly developmental

and learning theories (Edwards, 2005). As mentioned earlier, Froebel is credited

with founding the kindergarten movement, the word ‘kindergarten’ meaning

children’s garden (Dombkowski, 2002) which is significant for this study due to its


interest, amongst other key concerns, in re-establishing children’s connections with

nature and participation in environmental and sustainability issues.

Early childhood education is known for its child-centred pedagogy, an enduring

and revered concept (Langford, 2010). The intertwined notions of children, play and

nature are historically evident in early childhood education (Elliott, 2010) and

continue to form a significant part of early childhood education. Davis (2010b)

describes contemporary early childhood services as ‘quite good’ at providing

outdoor environmental play and ‘reasonable’ about setting up the conditions for

learning experiences about the environment. Active participation in learning is

another espoused characteristic of early childhood education, but enactment of this

principle is rather less developed (Theobald, Danby & Ailwood, 2011).

The mid 1960s saw early childhood education become more influenced by social

policy and developmental psychology, stemming from concern about child poverty,

and the notion that intelligence is not fixed but influenced by environment (Spodek

& Saracho, 2003). The first mass program of early intervention began in the 1960s

(Head Start in America) (Spodek & Saracho, 2003). Program models were based on

Piagetian theory, behavioural analysis theory and direct instruction models. The

primary goal of early childhood education was the promotion of cognitive

development and basic academic skills (Spodek & Saracho, 2003).

In July 1996 the American National Association for the Education of Young

Children adopted the position statement – Developmentally Appropriate Practice

(DAP) in early childhood programs for children from birth through age 8. This

well-known and influential position statement was predominantly conceived by

maturationist and constructivist influences, essentially a stage-based view of child

development that has been a predominant paradigm influencing early childhood


education in western developed countries including Australia. Developmentally

appropriate practice has since been challenged, and, although Piaget’s stage-based

view of child development is no longer in vogue (Clyde, 1995), his ideas about

knowledge construction continue to influence current early childhood education by

the provision of experiences and materials for children to learn through the

manipulation of concrete materials. More recently, co-constructivist approaches

have been added to the suite of ideas about individually constructed knowledge. Co-

constructivist approaches feature in the two curriculum documents that govern the

kindergarten where this study took place.

The Kindergarten’s Early Childhood Curriculum

To give context to the study, the two major curriculum documents that govern the

kindergarten where this research study took place, are now discussed. These two

Australian curriculum documents are primarily C&K’s (formerly known as Creche

& Kindergarten Association) Building Waterfalls (2011) and, of secondary

significance, the Belonging, Being and Becoming. Early Years Learning Framework

(Australian Government, DEEWR, 2009). C&K’s Building Waterfalls curriculum

(2011) embodies learning through play and active participation for young children

who are viewed as competent and capable. It is informed by readiness,

developmental, socio-cultural and critical reflection theoretical perspectives.

Curriculum approaches include learning through play, co-construction of knowledge

and teachers as facilitators (C&K, 2011). Children are recognised as being engaged

in learning from birth, as expressing and engaging in learning through a multiplicity

of ways that are connected with prior, present and future experiences. The Building

Waterfalls curriculum is built around four currents of thought which are connecting,

enlarging, listening, and exploring. Under each ‘current of thought’ are three shared


understandings, these can be found in Appendix 2. Building Waterfalls supports the

use of a Project Approach in early childhood education.

Guiding all early childhood education (non-formal education occurring before

compulsory schooling) in Australia is the newly introduced Belonging, Being and

Becoming. The Early Years Learning Framework (Australian Government,

DEEWR, 2009). This framework has a strong emphasis on play-based learning and

actively discusses children constructing knowledge through active participation. It

has five key learning outcomes which include: 1. children have a strong sense of

identity; 2. children are connected with and contribute to their world; 3. children

have a strong sense of wellbeing; 4. children are confident and involved learners;

and, 5. children are effective communicators (Australian Government, DEEWR,

2009). Hence it resonates with C&K’s Building Waterfalls.

In addition, since the early 1990s, early childhood education has been influenced

by the programs of Reggio Emilia (Italy). The curriculum of early childhood

programs in the town of Reggio Emilia advocate emergent and project-based

approaches to teaching and learning for young children (Gandini, 1993). Teachers

act as facilitators who scaffold ideas from the children (Gandini, 1993) and active

exploration and creativity are encouraged (Malaguzzi, 1993). The Reggio Emilia

approach is heavily embedded with the principles of constructivism, democracy,

open interchange of ideas and theories; the child is viewed as rich in potential,

powerful, competent and connected to others (Malaguzzi, 1993). The Reggio Emilia

approach has had significant influence over contemporary early childhood education

extending through to C&K’s Building Waterfalls, the principle curriculum

framework that informs the research site. All of these approaches are underpinned

by co-constructivist theory. This is discussed next.


Co-constructivist Theory and Early Childhood Education

The key assumptions underpinning co-constructivist theory are child co-

construction of knowledge based on what is already known and experienced,

facilitated learning, children’s projects and documentation (Morrison, 2007).

Jenkins (2009) states that “although constructivists’ views differ from whether

children develop cognitively as individuals who interact with their environment, or

within a social context via interpersonal interaction, all share the belief that children

are actively involved in constructing meaning” (p.31). Three key writers within this

paradigm are Piaget, Vygotsky and Dewey (Morrison, 2007). Piaget (1951) focused

on the individual’s construction of knowledge occurring as an individual passes

through identifiable developmental stages. Vygotsky (1997) focused on construction

of knowledge that results from social participation, believing that education is

largely determined by the social environment in which a person grows and develops.

Dewey (1944) focused on socially active and constructive learning.

The significance of social context is viewed differently amongst some of the key

theorists. To summarise these differences Dockett and Perry (1996) state that “for

Piaget, the importance of the social context was that it provided children with a

means of testing the knowledge they had constructed. For Vygotsky, the social

context is both the source and the cultural repository for the learning” (p.8), whereas

Dewey (1944) believed that education should not be a matter of ‘passive absorption’

or ‘being told’, but rather education should be an active and constructive process

within social contexts.

For the purposes of this study the focus was on the learning that occurs in the

social context of a kindergarten classroom. Therefore, Vygotsky was of particular

importance. Vygotsky believes that children construct knowledge through their


active social and cultural participation; that by working and exploring ideas

collectively, learning is more influential and effectual (Jenkins, 2009). Vygotsky

stresses the importance of play to enhance conceptual development and meaning-

making. His view is that knowledge is constructed as a result of social interaction

and then internalised by individuals. Internalisation of knowledge is different for

each individual and information cannot by internalised without active engagement by

the learner (Dockett & Perry, 1996; Watters & Diezmann, 1998).

Co-constructivist approaches have influenced early childhood curriculum and are

intended to provide children with opportunities to cooperate, explore meaningfully

and develop critical and creative thinking skills (Watters & Diezmann, 1998). Co-

constructivist epistemology highlights knowledge as a human production (Dunne,

Pryor & Yates, 2005) with Bencze (2005) describing co-constructivism as the

building or constructing “that occurs in people’s minds when they learn” (para.1).

Put simply, co-constructivist approaches to teaching and learning are based on the

belief that knowledge is constructed through socially active involvement on the part

of learners.

In summary, co-constructivist learning theory suggests a number of points about

teaching and learning including that: learners have ideas; learners’ ideas are not

necessarily the same as the teachers’ ideas; learners need ‘first-hand’ experiences;

learner inquiry is self-fulfilling; learners need other people; learners see what they

want to see; often learners are not aware of what they already know; learners might

not discover known conclusions; learners need to learn how to learn; and, learners

have the right to determine their beliefs (Bencze, 2005). Co-constructivist

approaches differ from more traditional approaches where the learner is the receiver

of knowledge (often ‘teacher talk’ followed by regurgitation of knowledge by


children), rather than an active participant in constructing and discovering for

themselves through ‘hands-on’ experiences (Watters & Diezmann, 1998).

Of significance for this study is the work of Dewey (1944), an influential educator

often associated with progressive education in the 1930s and 1940s, who advocated

for child-centred approaches and the use of project work for children. MacNaughton

and Williams (2009) describe Dewey as an educator who believed that individuals

should be nurtured through individualised learning and small group project-based

learning rather than traditional standardised whole class tasks. Glassman and

Whaley (2000) are also advocates of long-term projects (based on Dewey’s

educational philosophy) rather than more goal dominated forms of education. These

authors describe Dewey as believing that education is continuous with knowledge

emerging from everyday inquiry, meaning making and understanding. This then

forms the platform on which further learning is built. Hill, Stremmel and Fu (2005)

state that “Dewey described the creation of a community for learning in which

communication, shared interest, and activity are given purpose through social

interaction” (p.14). Meyers (2006) describes Dewey as advocating curriculum

content that could improve lives, developing educational methods that could redefine

society by focusing on the learner making sense of the world and empower them to

improve their own and the common good; ideas that are resonant with education for

sustainability.

The educator’s role, when a co-constructivist Project Approach is adopted, is to

facilitate learning rather than to teach directly (MacNaughton, 2003). This is a non-

directive approach because the teacher does not impart knowledge but scaffolds

learning initiated by children. In other words teachers facilitate investigations that

originate from children’s thoughts rather than from the teacher (Clark, 2006). In


essence the teacher participates in learning alongside the children (MacNaughton &

Williams, 2009), encouraging them to construct knowledge for themselves rather

than reciting what a teacher has imparted to them (MacNaughton, 2003). Teachers

behave as guides while the learning environment provides for self-discovery

(MacNaughton, 2003). The teacher carefully prepares the environment to facilitate

child learning (Clark, 2006), therefore facilitated children’s learning involves

teaching strategies such as resource selection, classroom organisation, intentional

exchanges (interactions planned by teachers) and observations related to the topic of

interest (MacNaughton & Williams, 2009). The following section discusses the

Project Approach which is designed to facilitate children’s learning.

The Project Approach

This section defines and discusses the Project Approach. Then, its typical format

is outlined and the lack of Australian examples of the Project Approach is pointed

out. Documentation of children’s learning, a key feature of the Project Approach, is

also defined, described and discussed. This style of teaching and learning seeks to

provide children with open-ended, child initiated opportunities for learning. It

recognises that young children co-construct knowledge through environmental and

social interactions, active, engaging and meaningful experiences (Clark, 2006; Harris

Helm & Gronlund, 2000). The Project Approach is not new to early childhood

education; in fact, as mentioned earlier, it has been part of progressive education for

over 80 years (Spodek & Saracho, 2003; McAninch, 2000). The Project Approach

reflects a progressive ideology with its roots in the work of Dewey (Spodek &

Saracho, 2003). The teacher’s role within the Project Approach is that of co-learner

and collaborator alongside children with the young viewed as competent, capable

and able to direct their own learning. In-depth investigation of significant topics that


help strengthen child curiosity through application of social, scientific, literacy,

creative and numeracy skills are advocated (Bullard & Bullock, 2002).

Chard (2011) defines a project “as an in-depth investigation of a real world topic

worthy of children’s attention and effort” (para. 1). A project generally begins from

an observed child interest and throughout the course of the project the teacher assists

children to explore this interest in a variety of ways suggested by the child

participants. This teaching and learning cycle is a continuous and ongoing process.

During the project, artifacts such as children’s drawings and photographs of

activities are kept as records of learning and discovery. Harris Helm and Katz

(2011) define the Project Approach as providing structure rather than a

‘prescription’. Although emergent in nature, a project would typically follow this

format:

Phase 1: Introductory phase

• An ‘interest web’ might be recorded (word and/or picture)

• Questions might be listed – ‘what do we want to know?’

• A list of ‘what we already know’ might be recorded

Phase 2: Synthesising phase

• In-depth exploration of interest area through a variety of open-ended

methods

Phase 3: Culminating phase

• A way of communicating what has been discovered during the course

of the project – this might involve displaying documentation (Katz &

Chard, 2000; Chard, 2011; Sloane, 2004).

Teachers who implement the Project Approach in their classrooms must consider

the implications that such an approach may have. They may have to relinquish some


decision making by empowering the children to control their own learning, allowing

children to initiate learning experiences and not giving children the answers; instead

teachers act as guide, resource and co-questioner alongside the children (Harris Helm

& Gronlund, 2000). The Project Approach is often described as offering muiltiple

ways for teachers to assist children to reach a high level of interest, develop intrinsic

motivation and work to high standards. Children are described as initiating project

work, asking researchable questions, and undertaking individual and collaborative

investigations that are structured to achieve high standards of learning (Chard, 2011).

Although there is quite a deal of literature pertaining to the positives of the

Project Approach, there are few examples of the Project Approach involving

sustainability issues and participation particularly for children under the age of five.

Clark (2005) points out that, generally speaking, most existing literature pertaining

to children’s participation, focuses on children aged five years and above. Chard

(2011) does make reference to project work raising awareness about ‘green issues’

on her website ‘The Project Approach’. This study, however, is concerned with

more than raising awareness of green issues. It is concerned with action-taking and

creating change. It is also difficult to find practical published Australian examples of

the Project Approach.

Documentation

A key feature of the Project Approach is documentation; this is now discussed.

The term ‘documentation’ refers to the variety of flexible record-keeping strategies

used in educational approaches; these strategies reflect the facilitated learning and

active participation that occur when approaches, such as the Project Approach, are

utilised. Such strategies are designed to accurately reflect the unique nature of what

a child or children have explored through the course of their learning. Katz and


Chard (1994) describe six ways that documentation contributes to early childhood

programs. They are: enhancement of children’s learning; taking children’s ideas and

work seriously; teacher planning and evaluation with children; parent appreciation

and participation; teacher research and process awareness; and children’s learning

being made visible. In summary, documentation enables children’s learning to

become visible through the inclusion of evidence about children’s thoughts,

experiences, ideas, representational work, photographs, narratives and transcriptions

of their comments (Bullard & Bullock, 2002).

The use of documentation within the Project Approach also reflects various

learning styles. While one child may represent his or her learning by building a

model (perhaps with a photo for evidence) another may represent their learning

through role-play (perhaps with a written anecdotal record by the teacher). The high

level of children’s participation is also reflected in documentation that records their

thinking, changes and actions. MacNaughton (2003) states that “traditional

approaches to observation and assessment deprive children of the right to be heard”

(p.149). Millikan (2003), on the other hand, states that “documentation provides us

with a tool for being advocates for the rights of the child” (p.102). Documentation

positions both the child and the teacher as active participants in knowledge

construction; for the child the documentation is about their learning and for the

teacher it is about understanding how and what the children are learning (Edwards,

2005). Forman and Hall (2005) also assert that teachers can gain insight into

children’s thinking through observation and documentation. They state that:

Children are competent learners, but as teachers, we have to slow down, carefully observe, and study our documented observations in order to understand the ideas that they are attempting to convey. In addition to slowing down, observing, and studying children’s actions and narration, understanding children’s theories requires a general knowledge of child development and a willingness to speculate (para 10).


Documentation is not a prescriptive process; it reflects learning that has been co-

constructed and is an alternative to more traditional methods of student assessment

(Harris Helm & Gronlund, 2000). Portfolios are collections of various

documentation. For example, a portfolio might contain photographs, work samples,

transcripts of student talk and anecdotes. These may reflect individual and social

learning experiences. Therefore, a group of children involved in the same project

may share similar artifacts. Although difficult to quantify, portfolios are a valuable

source of qualitatively different types of data (Mills, 2003).

Documentation is a key feature of the Project Approach and co-constructivist

teaching. It allows the focus to be on children’s strengths rather than deficits (Wilks,

2002), as evidence of what children can do is recorded rather than what they cannot

do. C&K’s Building Waterfalls curriculum (2011) advocates the use of

documentation as a powerful tool in recording both adult and children’s learning

(Geist & Baum, 2005). It is argued in this study that co-constructivist teaching, such

as the Project Approach and the accompanying children’s documentation of the

learning in a project, can enhance the fusing of the two fields; education for

sustainability and early childhood education.

Education for Sustainability and Early Childhood Education: Synthesising the

Fields

This section examines the short history of early childhood education for

sustainability (ECEfS), explains that early childhood education for sustainability is

largely undertheorised and then discusses what its characteristics might be. It

illustrates that, although early childhood education should be the ‘natural starting

point’ for environmental education and education for sustainability, as recommended

in the Gothenburg Recommendations (2008), it has not kept up with other education


sectors in incorporating education for sustainability into curricula and little attention

has been paid to early childhood education’s role in education for sustainability

(Johansson, 2009). Reasons for the slow response to the sustainability challenge by

early childhood education are outlined and young children’s potential to contribute

to sustainability is illustrated. Recent initiatives, including publications, case studies,

conferences and exemplars that relate to early childhood education for sustainability,

are also identified. This discussion concludes by recognizing the need for early

childhood education for sustainability to become mainstream.

Early childhood is generally referred to as the greatest and most significant period

of development, often regarded as the foundation on which the rest of life is built

(Australian Government, 2005; OECD, 2006). Therefore, it is the logical and natural

starting point for education for sustainability given its significance (The Centre for

Environment & Sustainability, 2009). However, rather than being the starting point,

the early childhood field has not kept up with other education sectors in

incorporating education for sustainability into curriculum (Elliott & Davis, 2009).

Further, there is little research evidence to support its uptake.

Embedded in concerns about education for sustainability in early childhood

education is a need to reverse the current trend of children leading increasingly

indoor existences (Davis & Elliott, 2003) and to rekindle children’s relationships

with nature. Positive interactions with the natural environment are an important part

of healthy child development and such interactions can enhance overall quality of

life (Cooke, 2010; Wilson, 2008). Kinsella (2007) concurs, stating that “there is

mounting evidence that connecting children to the natural world through early

education programs and environments enhances and enriches learning, and is

essential for healthy development” (p.1). Chawla and Flanders Cushing (2007)


point out that childhood experiences in nature contribute to pro-environmental

attitudes and lifestyles in later life. It is argued here that children should develop a

sense of respect and care for the natural environment or risk never developing such

attitudes as adults. Wilson (2008) continues, though, by explaining that young

children should not be expected to ‘watch and listen’, but rather to participate in

caring for and respecting the natural environment as well as observing sustainable

practices modeled by others.

Children today spend less time in the outdoor environment compared with

children from previous generations (Elliott, 2010; Louv, 2006; Morrison, 2007).

However, one of the main ways that children obtain environmental knowledge and

learning is by engaging in activities such as climbing, digging and balancing within

outdoor environments (Cosco, 2007) as this kind of outdoor play helps establish

connections with nature and combats development of sedentary lifestyles later on

(Cosco, 2007). As Young (2007) states:

Australian children are increasingly spending less time in the great outdoors due to fears about safety, hygiene and other perceived risks. A child playing outside is part of Australia’s cultural heritage; and a sustainable program ensures that children develop connections with the natural world and enjoy many of the activities that past generations took for granted, such as climbing trees, finding frogs and making mud pies (p.3).

Potentially compounding the problem of children having reduced opportunities to

obtain environmental knowledge (due to spending less time outdoors), is early

childhood teacher reluctance to include education for sustainability into the

curriculum. Elliott and Davis (2009) describe early childhood educator impressions

of education for sustainability as too negative and overwhelming a topic for young

children. Other barriers include: inadequate pre-service teacher education; a lack of

an agreed upon approach/framework for education for sustainability; that

sustainability is not well understood by the early childhood sector (Davis, 2009); a


lack of research to inform the field of early childhood education; and the lack of

recognition that early childhood has a significant role to play (Pramling Samuelsson

& Kaga, 2008). Meaningful, positive and appropriate ways to integrate education

for sustainability into early childhood education positively and constructively must

be established.

Although awareness about the importance of education for sustainability is

growing, there is only a small body of literature pertaining to education for

sustainability for the early childhood age group. While there are some commendable

examples where education for sustainability is central to early childhood curriculum

ethos, efforts in education for sustainability are characterised as individual

practitioner or single, centre-based efforts rather than reflecting a coordinated

approach to education for sustainability across the early childhood sector.

Furthermore, although some individual early childhood educators have made some

significant contributions, these have mostly been in the form of unpublished centre

practices or practical publications rather than explored through researched activities

that have the potential for challenging current theory and practice.

Some of the few examples where education for sustainability has featured in

research are now discussed. In her study on Australian four and five year olds, Page

(2000) found that young children were already interested in current issues related to

the environment and pollution. Page (2000) conducted 40 interviews with 4 and 5

years old to investigate their impressions about the future. During these interviews

children spoke and drew about what they would be like in the future and what a

future world would be like. Page (2000) reports that many of the children’s

interviews demonstrated their strong awareness of global aspects of the future

including pollution and deforestation.


Hicks and Holden (2007) also conducted a study into children’s thoughts about

the future. They used questionnaires with 552 primary school aged children in the

United Kingdom. Although these children were older than those in Page’s study,

Hicks and Holden also found that children demonstrated awareness of global issues.

The authors describe these as a ‘key concern’ (p.508) for children and stated that

“awareness that the future can hold both threat and promise begins in the early years

and continues into adulthood” (p.509).

An example, where sustainability practices were addressed and also recorded

through research in Australia, is Campus Kindergarten’s ‘Sustainable Planet

Project’. This Australian study found that participation in this project resulted in

significant reduction of waste, lower water and energy consumption and early

environmental citizenship (Davis, Rowntree, Gibson, Pratt & Eglington, 2005).

Over time, an embedded culture of sustainability has emerged in this centre

infiltrating through all aspects of the centre’s pedagogies and operations. Davis et al.

found that “This project demonstrates that even very young children are able to

critically respond to environmental concerns” (p.579).

Other Australian early childhood centres where practices and programs feature

sustainability include, the Gordon Community Children’s Centre publisher of

Playing for keeps (Gordon Technical College, 1993) an early espousal of

environmentally responsible practices for early childhood learning. Documents and

reports include: Patches of green (2003) published by the New South Wales

Environmental Protection Agency; Early Environmental Education. Making it

Mainstream (Davis & Elliott, 2003), a publication highlighting the need to make

education for sustainability as a key component of early childhood education; the

Little Green Steps program (Gosford & Wyong Councils, 2006); publications by


Early Childhood Australia including Greening Services: Practical sustainability

(Kinsella, 2007), and; Every Child magazine where a 2007 edition featured articles

about early childhood and sustainability. An example of growing professional

engagement with the uptake of early childhood education for sustainability includes

C&K’s (Brisbane, 2008) conference Surfing the waves towards a sustainable future,

which featured speakers specialising in education for sustainability for young

children. Also of significance is Davis’s (2010) early childhood teaching textbook

Young Children and the Environment which is a book for pre-service teachers at

Queensland University of Technology and University of New England currently.

Although these examples reflect growing awareness of education for sustainability

from the early childhood education field, a focused and coordinated approach to

education for sustainability is yet to be developed across the nation.

The Australian Government (2009) has also identified the need for a stronger,

coordinated national effort on early childhood education for sustainability.

However, Elliott states that “while governments and policy-makers have key roles in

climate-change regulation, building and nurturing ecologically sustainable

communities must begin with the education and care we provide” (2007, p.2).

Internationally, participants in the 2007 international workshop ‘The Role of Early

Childhood Education for a Sustainable Society’ confirmed that learning about

sustainability was not a common theme within early childhood education (Pramling

Samuelsson & Kaga, 2008).

Emerging Theoretical Underpinnings for Early Childhood Education for

Sustainability

Because of its newness, the field of early childhood education for sustainability

(ECEfS), remains largely emergent and undertheorised. Gough (1997) suggests that


both critical theory and co-constructivism can contribute to the development of

education for sustainability. Similarly, Jenkins (2009) suggests that education for

sustainability needs to draw on constructivist theory and transformative models of

education. This study does just that - integrates elements from both co-

constructivism and critical theory as a starting point to develop early childhood

education for sustainability beyond practice and into theory.

The key theoretical positions for the two fields that make up early childhood

education for sustainability; education for sustainability and early childhood

education, are now compared using MacNaughton’s (2003) three definitions of

teaching and learning (Figure 4). According to MacNaughton, teaching and learning

approaches can take three different positions - conforming, reforming and

transforming. It is argued here that mainstream early childhood education aligns

with the reforming position while education for sustainability aligns with the

transformative position. To achieve embedded education for sustainability in early

childhood education, early childhood practices need to broaden to become

transformative. Each position is briefly discussed before exploring reasons for

selecting the transformative teaching and learning approach to achieve early

childhood education for sustainability.


Figure 4. Objectivist, co-constructivist and critical views of learning (Adapted from

Byrnes, 1996; Arseneau & Rodenburg, 1998; MacNaughton, 2003 & 2004; Fien,

2004).

First, MacNaughton (2003) describes the ‘conforming to society’ position (also

referred to as cultural transmission ideology) as education that is useful to, and meets

the needs of, society. This objectivist view holds that knowledge exists outside of

individuals and can be transferred from a teacher to a child. If the teacher explains

concepts well, children will understand them and their understanding will be

demonstrated when the child repeats what has been taught (Byrnes,1996; Arseneau

& Rodenburg,1998). Objectivism is related to behaviourism and positivism (Castillo

& Marshall, 2003). Skinner was a significant contributor to the psychological theory

of behaviourism (MacNaughton & Williams, 2009). Skinner’s work influenced the

development of highly structured early childhood curriculum and programmed

Objectivist View Co-constructivist View Critical View

Knowledge exists outside of individuals and can be transferred from teachers to students.

Knowledge has personal meaning. It is can be created individually and socially. The teacher acts as a facilitator.

Knowledge is generated through student questioning, exploring issues, problems and critical thinking.

Students learn what they hear and what they read. If a teacher explains abstract concepts well, students will learn those concepts.

Students co-construct knowledge by looking for meaning and order; they interpret what they hear, read, and see based on their previous learning and habits. Students who do not have appropriate backgrounds will be unable to accurately “hear” or “see” what is before them.

Students learn through active participation, open interchange of ideas and opinions, exercising political literacy, challenging attitudes and values.

The learning process, rather than the product, is valued.

Learning is successful when students can repeat what was taught.

Learning is successful when students can demonstrate conceptual understanding.

Learning is successful when students can reason critically and problem-solve.

Conforming teaching

approach

Reforming teaching

approach

Transforming teaching

approach


instruction because of the belief that controlled environments led to controlled

learning (MacNaughton & Williams, 2009, p.321). The objectivist view holds that

knowledge can be passed on to someone who does not yet have that knowledge; the

teacher reveals knowledge to the child (Castillo & Marshall, 2003). In other words,

a conforming teaching approach to education for sustainability would involve

children repeatedly learning concepts about sustainability.

The second curriculum position MacNaughton (2003) describes is ‘reforming

society’. This position supports the belief that education can produce a ‘self-

governing’ child capable of independent thought as a result of individualised

curriculum content linked to needs and interests. In contrast to the objectivist view,

this co-constructivist view stems from progressive, child-centred philosophies of

early childhood and emphasises individual development in responsive environments

rather than the achievement of pre-set outcomes. This curriculum position aligns

with the work of Dewey and the Project Approach mentioned earlier. This co-

constructivist view holds that children construct knowledge that has meaning for

them, new learning builds on prior learning and children can demonstrate conceptual

understanding (Byrnes, 1996; Arseneau & Rodenburg, 1998). A reforming teaching

approach to education for sustainability would involve children co-constructing

knowledge and demonstrating their understanding about sustainability.

The third curriculum position discussed by MacNaughton (2003) is ‘transforming

society’ or a transformative approach. This position seeks to change existing

practices, rules, traditions and understandings in order to achieve greater equity and

social justice. Here teaching is spontaneous, flexible, sensitive and anti-bias in

nature (MacNaughton, 2003). A transformative teaching and learning approach

aligns with education for sustainability approaches of experiential learning, action-


taking and problem-solving. These strategies are derived from critical theory as they

are concerned with education that creates change, rather than maintaining the status

quo. Therefore, a transformative teaching approach to education for sustainability

would involve educators and children learning about concepts and working in

participatory ways, problem-solving and action-taking for sustainability. These

transformative approaches to education also involve empowerment and agency

(Centre for Environment & Sustainability, 2009), stemming from critical theory,

discussed earlier in relation to education for sustainability.

As Figure 4 shows, a number of sources have been used to compare and contrast

the three different approaches to teaching and learning. The objectivist and co-

constructivist columns are drawn from Byrnes (1996) and Arseneau and Rodenburg

(1998) and serve to contrast objectivist and co-constructivist approaches to teaching

and learning. The third column, ‘critical view’, represents an adaptation of ideas

from Fien (2004) and MacNaughton (2003). The bottom row (purple) represents

MacNaughton’s (2003) three approaches to teaching and learning.

As discussed previously, co-constructivist teaching is widely used and advocated

within current early childhood education. It is argued here, however, that a

pedagogical shift is required for education for sustainability to authentically become

part of early childhood education. Through transformative education practices,

young children can gain agency and take action in their own environments. Davis

(2007) describes transformative education as teaching and learning “that values,

encourages and supports children to be problem-seekers, problem-solvers and action-

takers in their own environments” (p.2).

Transformative teaching in early childhood rests on the belief that educators can

work with children and families to create a better world (MacNaughton, 2003).


MacNaughton (2003) states that “within this position, early education equips

children with the knowledge they require to recognise and confront injustice and to

resist oppressive ways of becoming” (p.183). While MacNaughton writes from a

social justice position I am extending her principles on transformative education to

education for sustainability through this study. Transformative teaching approaches

should contribute to a more just and wise society by offering diverse possibilities and

helping to develop the skills needed to create social change and emphasise non-

traditional knowledge (MacNaughton, 2003). It is anticipated that children and staff

who are engaged in planning and acting for sustainability will feel a sense of

personal responsibility which will carry over into interactions in the community and

workplace and help to develop a culture of sustainability in which education for

sustainaiblity is reinforced by continuous, positive improvement (Australian

Government, 2009).

Emerging Characteristics of Early Childhood Education for Sustainability

Children should have opportunities to interact and connect within their own

environments in order to develop meaningful understanding of the consequences of

sustainability issues. As Chawla (1999) states, those who learn about sustainable

living practices and establish a connection with nature are more likely to contribute

to a sustainable future. Gaul, Davis, Van de Graff and Elliott (2007) also state that it

is “during the early years the active, environmentally responsible, global citizen of

the future is created and nurtured. It is a time when the values, skills and

understandings about sustainability become the habits of a lifetime” (para. 6).

Wilson (2000) agrees, commenting that education for sustainability should begin in

the earliest years of life and should play a critical role in shaping lifelong attitudes

and behaviours towards natural environments. Early childhood educators, therefore,


should cater for frequency and quality of child-environment opportunities and

interactions. Of concern, though, are the barriers that prevent today’s children from

connecting and appreciating the world they live in and later inherit. Louv (2006)

writes eloquently about this idea stating that:

Within the space of a few decades, the way children understand and experience nature has changed radically. The polarity of the relationship has reversed. Today, kids are aware of the global threats to the environment – but their physical contact, their intimacy with nature, is fading (p.1).

Early childhood education for sustainability, therefore, is characterised by

teaching children to understand the balance of natural systems of the Earth as this is

a central component to achieving a sustainable society (Lowe, 2007). In the early

years young children develop basic skills and values, as well as behaviours and

habits which may last a lifetime, including those that support sustainable practices

(Pramling Samuelsson & Kaga, 2008). Nevertheless, simply connecting young

children with their environment is not enough for sustainable living. A

contemporary conceptualisation of early childhood education for sustainability that

fosters problem-solving, participation and empowerment is required (Davis, 2009).

For example, it is not enough for a child to know about water conservation issues, a

conforming to society approach; it is important that they also act upon this

knowledge (Davis & Elliott, 2003), a transforming approach. The Project Approach

is now explored as a potential pedagogical means for exploring sustainability.

The Project Approach in Early Childhood Education for Sustainability

The Project Approach offers a potential pedagogical means for embedding

education for sustainability in early childhood education. For example, for children

to learn about water conservation they could potentially engage in project work

around water and water conservation. Such project participation should involve


children in learning about water and water conservation (co-constructivism) and then

acting upon their learning (transformative education). Transformative teaching and

learning in early childhood education helps children to make wise choices (for

example to conserve water), and see sustainable living modelled within their early

childhood settings (Elliott, 2007). Such practices allow children to ‘experience’

sustainability in the present, as well as developing sustainable practices they can then

take into the future.

Conceptual Framework for this Study

This section explains the conceptual framework (Figure 5) which represents my

view of the current situation related to early childhood education and education for

sustainability. It also provides the theoretical underpinnings for the study. It has

been developed by integrating key insights from critical theory that inform education

for sustainability and co-constructivism that informs early childhood education. The

aim is to create a foundation on which to build early childhood education for

sustainability – a transformative education approach where children can construct

learning about sustainability and meaningfully enact it.

It is argued that the conceptual framework represents an appropriate ‘lens’

through which to view this research. The Centre for Environment and Sustainability

(2009) describes early childhood education for sustainability as having “the potential

to foster socio-environmental resilience based on interdependence and critical

thinking, setting foundations for lives characterised by self respect, respect for

others, and respect for the environment” (para. 3). Although my teaching was

influenced heavily by strongly held beliefs about children co-constructing and

‘driving’ their own learning, as I have explained, I have also recognised that this

failed to adequately address sustainability issues. Hence I examined my pedagogical


practices and developed this conceptual framework. Each component of the

conceptual framework is now discussed.

Figure 5. My Conceptual Framework: Young Children as Change Agents for

Sustainability

The reason for using a ‘Venn-style diagram’ as the conceptual framework is

twofold. First, it highlights shared concepts between the two fields of research

interest. Second, it represents the synthesis of the two fields which occurred in this

study. Thus, early childhood education is represented by the blue circle, and

education for sustainability is represented by the green circle. The smaller of these

two circles (green) is deliberately so to reflect my lesser experience with education

for sustainability. The larger circle (blue) represents the area where I have more

experience (early childhood education). Featured centrally within the framework are

the concepts shared by the two theoretical positions (turquoise ring) with, the study’s

research questions which are represented in the yellow ring. Action research,


discussed in chapter three, is the research methodology for this study and is therefore

represented by the orange circle within this conceptual framework. It is represented

centrally, as action research is the means that brings together each of the study’s

significant components. To reiterate, components of the conceptual framework are

represented here, in linear form, as follows:

Blue circle – Early childhood education

Insights drawn from co-constructivist theory perspective

• Co-construction of knowledge

• Facilitated learning

• The Project Approach

• Documentation

Green circle - Education for sustainability

Insights drawn from critical theory perspective

• Taking action

• Change

• Critical thinking

• Empowerment and agency

Turquoise circle – Shared concepts

Concepts shared between early childhood education and education for

sustainability

• Experiential learning

• Problem-solving

• Democratic practice


Yellow circle – Research questions (Please note that the research questions are

abbreviated)

1. How does the Project Approach facilitate education for sustainability

2. What is the teacher’s learning journey?

3. Can children be social agents for change?

Orange circle – Young children as change agents for sustainability (Title)

Action research cycle:

1. Reflect

2. Raise questions

3. Plan to seek answers

4. Fieldwork/research

5. Data analysis

6. Think of new actions

As the insights drawn from co-constructivist theory (co-construction of

knowledge, facilitated learning, the Project Approach and documentation) and

critical theory (change, taking action, critical thinking, democracy, empowerment

and agency) have been addressed earlier in this chapter they will not be explained

again. The following chapter addresses the research methodology and two of the

three research questions. The third research question is discussed in the final

discussion. Following, therefore, is a discussion of the shared concepts of

experiential learning, problem solving and democratic practice (turquoise ring in my

conceptual framework model).

Experiential Learning

Walsh and Gardner (2005) summarise the key features of experiential learning as:

active engagement in learning; independence and a level of control over learning;


feeling secure within the learning environment; learning in social contexts; learning

that involves multiple skill acquisition and higher-order thinking skills (para 13).

Experiential learning has value for this study because of my interest in child-driven

learning in the social context of the kindergarten classroom.

Experiential learning features in both early childhood education and education for

sustainability, therefore an explanation of experiential learning is important.

Experiential learning: posits learning as a major determinant of human development;

determines personal development; is multilinear and influenced by life course and

learning style; is concerned with the learning process, creating knowledge and

interacting with the environment rather than the achievement of set outcomes (Kolb

& Kolb, 2005). Fien (2004) describes experiential learning as: learning that involves

and develops capacities for student identification of questions, issues and problems

as starting points for learning; active participation in meaningful learning;

application of a range of skills; open interchange of ideas and opinions; and,

exercising political literacy through understanding the world and knowledge about

how to participate in it.

Problem-solving

Problem solving also features in both early childhood education and education for

sustainability, therefore an explanation of problem solving is significant for this

study. Problem-solving is a foundation skill underpinning learning in and about the

world. Educators should provide an environment where children’s problem-solving

practices are encouraged and valued (MacNaughton & Williams, 2009). Problem-

solving, as a teaching technique, involves assisting children to learn how to find

answers. Chawla and Flanders Cushing (2007) state that “discussions within

supportive environments enable children and youth to consider a range of


perspectives, integrate what they hear and transform it into their own words, and

think through their own positions” (p. 442). Children are more likely to engage in

problem-solving if they have a personal sense of competence (Chawla & Flanders

Cushing, 2007).

Young children should develop problem-solving skills so that they can recognise

and manage sustainability issues positively. By paying greater attention to the

learner as an active agent in education for sustainability, teachers will develop

greater understanding about how environmental learning takes place (Hopwood,

2007). MacNaughton and Williams (2009) state that appropriate problems for

children to solve are those that are related to everyday experiences; sustainability

issues fit well within this criteria.

Democratic Practice

Dewey (1944) believed that democracy and education were interwoven. He

believed that education should not aim to reproduce the status quo (conservative

education), but rather education should seek to embrace change as well as break

down barriers such as class and race (progressive education). As also identified by

the critical theorists, progressive education does not seek to replicate the status quo;

rather it seeks to shape the experiences of the young in such a way that better habits

are formed and future society is an improvement (Dewey, 1944; Glassman &

Whaley, 2000). According to Dewey (1944) democracy repudiates principles of

external authority, preferring associated living and conjoint communicated

experiences. Of education that reproduces social inequality, he stated that “lack of

the free and equitable intercourse which springs from a variety of shared interests

makes intellectual stimulation unbalanced” (p.84-85). When discussing the

democratic conception in education, Dewey (1944) commented:


To say that education is a social function, securing direction and development in the immature through their participation in the life of the group to which they belong, is to say in effect that education will vary with the quality of life which prevails in a group. Particularly it is true that a society which not only changes but which has the ideal of such change as will improve it, will have different standards and methods of education from one which aims simply at the perpetuation of its own customs (p.81).

Democratic education, says Dewey (1944), cannot flourish when the chief

influences have utilitarian ends. As discussed earlier, current educational systems

favour economic dimensions (Sterling, 2001) rather than social and environmental

dimensions. Education for sustainability, therefore, should acknowledge the social

responsibilities of education presenting situations where problems are relevant to

living together, where observation and information develop social insight and

interest (Dewey, 1944). Opportunities for collaborative decision making enable

young people to exercise control of their environments and lives, so they can make

their own decisions based on information and discussions and hence, contribute to

authentic democracy (Chawla & Flanders Cushing, 2007). These ideas can

legitimately be updated to include environmental and sustainability issues.

The Conceptual Framework as a Theoretical Basis for the Study

The conceptual framework presented in this thesis provided a theoretical basis for

this study and represents a beginning point for theorising about early childhood

education for sustainability. At the core of this framework is child participation in

projects around environmental and sustainability topics using both critical and co-

constructivist insights. The conceptual framework (young children as change agents

for sustainability) and the chosen methodology (action research) align as they both

require a high level of participation (rather than passive engagement) by all

participants. As Fuzne Koszo (2006) states, “it is important therefore to stress that

environmental education is more of a journey rather than a destination. Children


learn about environmental education by being involved in the process” (p.114). It is

suggested that teachers, like myself, also learn more about education for

sustainability by being involved in the process alongside children. Action research

then was an appropriate methodology for this reason.

Chapter Summary

This chapter began by identifying the global consequences of unsustainable

practices. Current sustainability issues receiving attention include global warming,

unsafe water, unsustainable use of natural resources and reduced quality of human

life and health. Such issues have significance for both current and future

generations. This chapter acknowledged the right of young children to a sustainable

future. A sustainability agenda was described as a far reaching issue (Davis, 2007a)

with many implications for children and future generations.

Education’s role in addressing sustainability was also discussed, pointing out that

it is not enough to learn about the environment or in the environment. Learning

needs to be active and participatory; in other words learning for the environment.

Education should encourage teaching and learning that empowers current and future

generations to live sustainably as a matter of survival (Buchan, 2004). The chapter

described how education can be conforming, reforming or transforming

(MacNaughton, 2003). A transformative approach was described as the most

appropriate approach to address sustainability through education because it seeks to

change existing practices, rules, traditions and understandings in order to achieve

greater equity (Davis, 2007b; MacNaughton, 2003).

The issue of education for sustainability in the early childhood years was

addressed. The lack of environmental and sustainability education opportunities

within most early childhood contexts was reflected. The need for research in this


area was identified. This chapter explored a potential shift in teaching by merging

early childhood education, largely characterised by co-constructivist approaches

(MacNaughton, 2003) with education for sustainability, largely characterised by

critical approaches (MacNaughton, 2003), to produce transformative education for

sustainability. The Project Approach was suggested as a potentially transformative

strategy. Complementary to the Project Approach is the teaching and learning

strategy of documentation. Documentation was explained as a way to ‘make

learning visible’. It is an alternative approach to traditional and standardised forms

of record-keeping about children’s progress.

To conclude the chapter, my conceptual framework was defined. This was

developed by combining key insights from co-constructivism and critical theory and

identifying shared concepts between the two fields. This framework was advanced

as potentially contributing to, or providing a foundation for, the field of early

childhood education for sustainability. This research, and the development of the

conceptual framework, responds to calls for research in this area. Research helps

develop a theorised foundation for ongoing early childhood education for

sustainability practices. The next chapter explores the methodology of the study.

Chapter 3: Methodology 70 Sharon Stuhmcke EdD Thesis 2012

CHAPTER THREE

Methodology

This chapter explains the study’s methodology which has been informed by the

conceptual framework discussed in the previous chapter. It begins with a

consideration of the research questions. In light of the case study approach, the three

main components of this study’s case are now elaborated. Reasons for selecting

action research as the research methodology are outlined. Data collection methods

and data analysis are presented before discussing research ethics and research

validity. Research limitations are acknowledged. Stages of the study are outlined

before the chapter is summarised.

The research questions were:

1. How might a Project Approach facilitate education for sustainability?

2. Can young children learn to be social agents for change through education

for sustainability?

3. What is the ‘learning journey’ of the teacher-as-researcher when co-

constructivist teaching approaches are extended to include transformative

early education?

These research questions have been devised to investigate the key interests of

the study. Research Question 1 (RQ 1) investigates the Project Approach as a

means of addressing the research concern. Research Question 2 (RQ 2) uncovers

and explores the actions of the research participants. Research Question 3 (RQ 3)

examines my experiences during the study.

Qualitative Research

In this study it was the human experience of both education for sustainability and

early childhood education that was of interest. This research explored research


questions that were general and broad in nature. This research looked at children’s

and teacher experiences within an early childhood context which featured the project

teaching and learning approach to address sustainability issues. The main purpose of

this study was to seek understanding from the participants’ perspectives (Creswell,

2005; Locke, Silverman & Wyrick Spirduso, 2004; MacNaughton & Hughes, 2009).

Qualitative research is best suited for research problems where the variables are

not known and the literature has yielded little about the phenomenon of interest

(Creswell, 2005). In other words, more needed to be learned from young

participants actively engaged in early childhood education for sustainabilty.

Qualitative research was appropriate for this study because it is a broad approach to

the study of social phenomena - it is interpretive and naturalistic (Golafshani, 2003).

Naturalistic research is research that occurs in natural settings where little intrusion

to the normal routine occurs (Holly, Arhar & Kasten, 2009). Qualitative research

draws on multiple methods of inquiry and is grounded in the lived experiences of

people (MacNaughton & Hughes, 2009; Marshall & Rossman, 1999). Qualitative

research can be presented in many ways. However, for the purposes of this research,

case study and action research were selected and are explained in the following

section.

Case Study

This study is presented as a case study. Case study draws attention to what can be

especially learned from closely examining a case (MacNaughton, Rolfe & Siraj-

Blatchford, 2001; Stake, 2005). Case studies occur when a researcher explores a

program, an event, an activity, a process or individuals in depth (MacNaughton,

Rolfe & Siraj-Blatchford, 2001). Each case is bound by time and activity. The

researcher collects detailed information using various data collection methods over


time. Stake (2003) defines three types of case study. Intrinsic case study refers to a

researcher exploring a particular case of interest. Instrumental case study is defined

as a particular case being examined in order to provide insight into an issue.

Collective case studies are defined as several instrumental case studies that may

advance some common characteristic. Stake (2005) further elaborates about

instrumental case study by explaining that, although the case is looked at in depth, it

is of secondary interest. The case is mainly examined to provide insight into the

primary issue of interest. In this case the primary issue of interest was children’s

engagement with education for sustainability when the Project Approach was

applied.

This study was an ‘instrumental’ case study according to Stake’s categories. The

kindergarten represented the case. The phenomenon under investigation was

children’s participation in education for sustainability. A children’s project, related

to environmental sustainability, advanced understanding about how young children

experience education for sustainability. This project, and its related documentation,

was examined in depth in order to pursue this interest.

The case of interest is made up of three interrelated components. First is the

kindergarten, the physical setting where the study took place. The research

participants make up the second component within the case. The third component

was myself as the teacher-researcher who undertook the study. Each is now

discussed.

The Kindergarten

The educational context for this research study was a community-based, single unit

kindergarten located on a large bayside suburban block close to Brisbane, the capital

city of Queensland, Australia. The block on which the kindergarten is located is


largely zoned as a nature reserve. The kindergarten itself directly borders the

reserve. The kindergarten has two classes of children – each group attends for five

days per fortnight, either at the beginning or the end of the week with alternating

Wednesdays. The kindergarten building and playground are shared by both classes.

However, only one class is in attendance at any given time. Both classes consist of

22 children, a mix of males and females, aged between 3 ½ to 5 years generally

referred to as Pre-prep. There is one teacher and one teacher aide per class. In this

study only one class participated and this was the class that I worked with directly.

The educational program operates from 9am until 2.30pm. The kindergarten

observes the same school holidays as the state school system, that is 4 terms of 10 or

11 weeks each.

As a C&K affiliate, the kindergarten operates primarily under C&K’s ‘Building

Waterfalls’ (C&K, 2011) curriculum and the national Belonging, Being and

Becoming. Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) (Australian Government,

DEEWR, 2009). Both curriculum documents were discussed in the previous

chapter. Both frameworks advocate that children be viewed as competent and

capable learners (C&K, 2011; Australian Government, DEEWR, 2009). C&K is a

community based early childhood association that has been providing early

childhood education in Queensland for more than one hundred years. Building

Waterfalls, has been implemented in affiliated Queensland Pre-preparatory early

childhood settings (kindergartens) since 2007. EYLF is Australia’s national

curriculum framework for early childhood and was introduced in 2009. Both

curriculum frameworks require teachers to maintain extensive records, known also

as documentation, which was discussed earlier. This helps teachers monitor

individual children’s progress and participation as well as group dynamics overall.


As noted, the case for this study was the research site (the kindergarten). Of

primary interest was the children’s project involving learning and action related to

education for sustainability. This project was documented for the purposes of:

assessing children’s learning, professional accountability, and for this study. The

project took place over a seven week period which included the full cycle of

introductory, synthesising and culminating project phases. Data from each phase

were collected and analysed. The intention was to involve children in education for

sustainability through the Project Approach which involved a collection of

meaningful learning and teaching experiences aimed at empowering them in their

choices and practices.

Before the study began, the staff within the research site mainly used a co-

constructivist approach to teaching and learning. Children were encouraged to

engage in learning through open-ended, child-centred teaching and learning

experiences within the educational environment, both indoor and outdoor. Children

were encouraged to follow many ‘paths’ as they constructed and explored new

concepts through their investigations.

In conjunction with the study an ‘environmental committee’, comprising of

interested staff, parents and others was established to address education for

sustainability within the kindergarten’s environment and curriculum. The following

recommendations by Davis (2007b) were used to provide a starting point for

discussion by the committee members about environmental and sustainability issues:

ensuring the provision of quality natural environments; child involvement; ‘green’

housekeeping practices; building sustainability into policies and practices; a

commitment to ongoing learning about sustainability; and, participation in early

childhood environmental/sustainability networks. These topics also fall within


MacNaughton’s (2003) ‘transforming society’ curriculum approach which extends

beyond the limitations of Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP). They

provided a useful and practical starting point for the kindergarten and the centre’s

community to address education for sustainability within the early childhood

classroom. Following are sections on action research and teacher-research, which

were an integral component of the case being investigated.

Action Research

According to McNiff, Lomax and Whitehead (2003), all research strives to

generate legitimate evidence that supports a claim of new knowledge by following

common processes such as identifying a research issue, developing a research

design, gathering data, generating evidence, and making findings. Action research

aims to create change in three ways, these being practitioners’ practices, their

understandings of their practices, and the conditions in which they practise (Kemmis,

2009). Action research differs from other kinds of research because it is practitioner-

based, focused on learning, embodies good professional practice, leads to social and

personal improvement, is socially responsive, demands higher order thinking skills,

is intentionally political, focuses on change and allows practitioners to take

responsibility for their own actions (McNiff, Lomax & Whitehead, 2003). Action

research involves a moral commitment to improving society, ourselves and our lives

together (Holly, Arhar & Kasten, 2009); that is, it has liberatory potential that seeks

to produce a more just world rather than academic theories or knowledge (Reason &

Bradbury, 2001). Therefore, due to the work-based nature of this study (with teacher

as researcher), and the desire to explore, change and improve teaching practices

(Kemmis, 2009; Marshall & Rossman, 1999) as well as effect positive


environmental change through education, action research was selected and used as

the research methodology for this study.

Teacher Research

This section defines practitioner research (in this case, teacher-researcher) and

explains why this study falls into the practitioner research category. This is followed

by an explanation about why action research is an appropriate methodology for

practitioner research. It also discusses the ‘educative influence’ of practitioner

research and concludes by acknowledging varying opinions about practioner

research.

Practitioner research in early childhood education is defined by Henderson, Meier

and Perry (2004, p.1) as methodical and sustained study of a specific aspect of

teaching and learning involving young children. It examines a particular issue using

unique ‘insider’ perspectives, utilises varied data and, often, children’s ‘voices’ are

‘heard’ (Dockett & Perry, 2005).

In this study the researcher was also the classroom teacher. Hence, this study

falls into the category of teacher research. Teacher research involves investigations

of: teachers’ own teaching practices; deeper understanding of children and the

teaching and learning process; equalising of power relationships; co-operative

solution-finding; and, greater teacher commitment due to personal involvement

(Borgia & Schuler, 1996). Considering these benefits, teacher research can be

viewed positively as work-based, ongoing and a version of reflective professional

development.

Teacher research serves the important purpose of teacher self-reflection, critical

examination of teacher practice and thus improvement of teacher practice.

Schwalbach (2003) recommends that the teacher-researcher select a topic that; she is


passionate about; will improve teacher practice; caters for the needs of children;

investigates why some children perform and others do not; and, will facilitate better

child knowledge, understanding and performance. Teacher research in early

childhood settings potentially provides unique insider perspectives on real issues

(Henderson, Meier & Perry, 2004). Teachers can engage in daily teaching, improve

their pedagogical practices as well as contribute to practical and theoretical research

knowledge when they undertake practitioner-based research (Whitehead & McNiff,

2006). Using these guidelines, I identified the research interest to be the exploring

and broadening a project-based teaching and learning approach in order to address

the challenge of sustainability within early childhood education.

Teachers and Action Research

Action research is often suggested as appropriate for practitioner research (New

South Wales, Department of Education and Training Professional Learning &

Leadership Development Directorate, 2010). There are three key benefits for

teachers when they engage in action research. These are: action research supports

child learning as the teacher goes further to find ways to reach children; fosters

teacher learning and professional growth; and, contributes to the profession (Arthur,

Beecher, Death, Dockett & Farmer, 2008). Teachers who engage in action research

demonstrate that the process of inquiry is valued. They solve problems, develop

responsive and enriched curriculum, and can bring about change in schools and

classrooms (Burnaford, 2001).

Action research had value for this study because it assisted me towards

professional change (MacNaughton & Hughes, 2009), and improved my

instructional strategies and curriculum to promote student learning (Herr &

Anderson, 2005; Schwalbach, 2003). Indeed these were the reasons driving this


research. By engaging in action research I was able to generate new and deeper

thinking about my practices (MacNaughton & Hughes, 2009), particularly around

ways to embed education for sustainability into early childhood curricula and

integrate transformative pedagogies. In early childhood education, consensus about

how to incorporate education for sustainability into the curriculum is lacking. There

are limited exemplary practices and no articulated set of pedagogical principles to

guide education for sustainability. In other words, an evidence-based approach

through to educational practice and sample curriculum is needed. Education for

sustainability requires teaching and learning approaches that enhance understanding,

knowledge, promote critical and ethical reasoning, motivate and equip children to

participate in community affairs (Davis, 2010; Fien, 2004). This study sought to find

out whether or how these attributes might be enacted in early childhood education.

Action research was viewed as an effective means of classroom-based research to

guide these changes.

Action research is classroom level curriculum development concerned with

improving educational practice as well as practitioners developing their own

teaching within their own workplace (Burton & Bartlett, 2005; MacNaughton &

Hughes, 2009; Schwalbach, 2003). The action researcher employs a variety of

methods to examine a particular issue and the teacher-researcher acts as the primary

instrument for data collection, developing a broad collection of detailed records on

which to base interpretations (Locke et al., 2004).

This practitioner research study evolved from the researcher’s own concerns

about a situation (that early childhood education has been slow to address

sustainability issues) and the lack of a coherent curriculum response to early

childhood education for sustainability. This situation led me to consider ways that


this situation could be remedied or how I could exercise and/or use ‘educational

influence’ (McNiff & Whitehead, 2009, p.74). Educative influence is defined as

influence over others that is underpinned by a moral commitment and encourages

others to think (McNiff & Whitehead, 2009). This study aimed to improve early

childhood educational experiences involving education for sustainability by

employing a transformative approach to teaching and learning. This approach

centres children in the teaching and learning process giving them agency and ability

to facilitate change within their local context. For young children small scale

actions, within classrooms and local communities, are deemed most appropriate

(Chawla & Flanders Cushing, 2007). In summary, then, I aimed to adjust, revise and

improve my early childhood educational practices through action research.

Some critics, nevertheless, question the ability of teachers to conduct research and

come up with valid results (Hodgkinson, 1982). Others proclaim that teacher-

researchers can redefine their roles as teachers through their participation in research

activities (MacLean & Mohr, 1999). The latter view holds that teacher research that

is enmeshed in the classroom context is a form of professional development and

contributes to curriculum development, school planning, program evaluation, teacher

preparation and school reform (MacLean & Mohr, 1999). I subscribe to this latter

point of view, believing that teachers can make significant contributions to their

profession and to the lives of their children via action research. This study was

planned to contribute towards changing attitudes and actions, with respect to

education for sustainability, in a way that extends current early childhood education

practices. Key to this study were the experiences and active participation of the

research participants who are described in the following section.


Research Participants

The key research participants were those children in one of the kindergarten’s

classes who gave informed consent (Harcourt & Conroy, 2005), and who chose to

engage in project-based learning related to education for sustainability. The term

‘participants’ has been selected, in preference to the term ‘subjects’, as this study

takes the view that participants play a role in the study (Holly, Arhar & Kasten,

2009). This perspective is supported by Grover (2004) who states “when children

are permitted in those rare cases to become active participants telling their own story

in their own way, the research experience is often personally moving and meaningful

and the data provided rich and complex” (p.84).

These children (maximum of twenty-two) were 11 males and 11 females and aged

between 3 ½ and 5 years. I was reasonably assured that these participants would

generate data related to the research interest (McNiff, Lomax & Whitehead, 2003) as

the kindergarten’s program employed project-based learning and the curriculum

already had a strong environmental focus. The very nature of the Project Approach

is such that teachers and children co-learn, co-research and co-construct together.

The keeping of documentation of children’s learning during project work encourages

them and teachers to monitor their ‘learning journeys’, reflect and evaluate

collaboratively.

In addition to the children, other research participants included myself as the

teacher-researcher, the teacher aide and other adults such as parent-helpers. These

participants were also significant in terms of their interactions with the children.

While the teacher aide and I were present everyday and were ultimately responsible

for organising the kindergarten program, parents were able to attend on a roster

system. As the kindergarten also showed a PowerPoint presentation for 10 to 15


minutes at the end of each day that illustrated that day’s events, parents are able to

view the day’s overview with their child and the staff. Parents, children and staff

often discussed and reflected on the day’s learning events at this time. Hence,

having parents as study participants was worthwhile.

Nested Research

The research is ‘nested’ in the sense that each component of the study ‘fits

together’. A form of action research was already taking place within the research

context as the teacher used a planning cycle that mirrors the action research cycle.

Furthermore, the children were currently engaged in learning projects which also

utilised an action research approach. As education for sustainability research is often

characterised by action research within a critical enquiry approach, there was a close

synergy between education for sustainability, this study, and the existing daily

practices at the research site, as Figure 6 shows.


The Action Research Study

This section details the action research that took place for this study. Action

research is a cyclical process where the researcher and participants investigate a

situation through a systematic process of inquiry, data collection and analysis

(Schwalbach, 2003). Each cycle increases researcher knowledge about the original

research question/problems thus allowing researchers to potentially gain further

insight into a problem (Herr & Anderson, 2005). Each cycle, also, informs future

cycles, possibly leading to broader insights and data gathering (including data not

previously anticipated) as a direct result of researcher reflection and growing

ECEfS

Children as stewards of the

Earth

Transformative teaching and

learning Children enacting

change

Children co-constructing projects in

sustainability

Figure 6. Diagram representing the research project’s ‘nested approach’


understanding based on previous cycles (Herr & Anderson, 2005). This type of

‘evolving methodology’ is to be expected given the nature of the action research

spiral (Herr & Anderson, 2005). As already noted, this cyclical process closely

mirrors the teaching methods employed by many teachers in the execution of regular

classroom and curriculum planning. Therefore this study used action research cycles

twice. The first action research cycle represented the study as a whole. The second

was a sub cycle, within the whole study, which occurred within step 4 of the study.

Step 4, the fieldwork and research component of the study, marked the period where

data were collected and is referred to as the children’s environment project, a second

action research cycle in itself. Figure 7 shows the action research cycle of the study

as a whole, with step 4 showing the sub cycle which represents the study’s fieldwork

phase. This is now explained in detail.

Figure 7. The study’s action research cycle (with the children’s project as a sub cycle at step 4)

Introductory

phase

Culminating phase

Synthesising phase

The children’s environment project

The Study Children as Change

Agents for Sustainability:

An action research case study in a kindergarten


First the study’s action research cycle steps are explained. Because of their close

alignment, steps 1 and 2 have been combined as have steps 4 and 5 as follows:

Steps 1 & 2 Reflection and raising questions – These steps form the study’s

prelude. My interest in environmental education led me to

research literature about education for sustainability. I found that

education for sustainability proponents advocate for

transformative teaching and learning practices whereas I had been

teaching from a co-constructive perspective. This raised

questions about how I could address education for sustainability

with young children.

Step 3 Planning to seek answers – This step outlined my theorising about

ways to embed education for sustainability within early childhood

education.

This step was concerned with formulating a way to research the

topic of interest; early childhood education for sustainability. I

devised a conceptual framework to inform my proposed research.

Steps 4 & 5 Fieldwork and data analysis - These steps represented an action

research cycle in its own right. The children’s environment

project is described according to the three phases of the Project

Approach (Chard, 2011). Data analysis was discussed in terms of

the research questions and salient themes that emerged as part of

the fieldwork.

Step 6 Thinking through new actions – This step served to synthesise the

study’s findings and to suggest ways that this study could provide


impetus for further research involving early childhood education

for sustainability.

The overall action research cycle and the children’s environment project shared

common elements and, therefore, close synergy (Goodfellow, 2005). Figure 8

details the children’s environment project (Step 4). This project, a sub-cycle of the

larger action research case study, was formed around the teacher-researcher’s own

curriculum planning cycle and the Project Approach’s three phases. Figure 8

elaborates this sub-cycle by giving details about planned participant activities which

were outlined for each week of the children’s environment project.

Figure 8 includes the following components: the project-based learning phases,

the roles of the children, collaborative roles (undertaken by the teacher-researcher

and children together) and the teacher-researcher’s roles. These are now explained.

The Project Approach phases, introductory phase, synthesising phase and

culminating phase - are represented by underlined text. Weeks one and two (in

Figure 8) represent the introductory phase of the project and reflect the initial

planning stages about what will be learnt and possible ways to proceed. Weeks 3, 4

and 5 represent the synthesising phase of the project. In this phase, children and

teachers were actively involved in the project interest. Weeks 6 and 7 represent the

culminating project phase, where learning was evaluated and reflected upon, and

ideas for further learning were planned. Reflective and evaluative components of

this cycle provided catalysts for change and improvement (Arthur, Beecher, Death,

Dockett & Farmer, 2008).

WEEK 2 Introductory project phase Children interact with learning environment and

others. Children make predictions about topic

Provide learning environment, materials and resources to stimulate and enrich learning about EfS (based on observations). Intentional interactions around EfS Interact with each other and with the learning

environment, investigate topic of interest

Weeks 3 & 4 Synthesising project phase Children direct own learning, negotiate ways to explore

topic and represent learning/findings (Clark, 2006)

Continue to facilitate experiential learning, scaffold children’s interests, document experiences and encourage/assist children to take action related to EfS, engage in critical thinking. In collaboration plan what to do next, what do we

want to know? Where could we find out? Continue

investigations

Week 5 Synthesising project phase Children drive learning, ask questions,

explore interest & problem-solve

Co-learn, co-construct alongside children, participate in project work related to EfS, document & collect data

Collaborative involvement in

project-based learning, create

representations of findings

WEEK 1 Introductory project phase Children participate in program &

develop questions about topic

Reflect on observations of children engaging in/discussing/ exploring EfS, facilitate learning based on these observations.

Collaboratively select a topic of

interest

Figure 8. The children’s environment project

Intro

Weeks

1&2

Culm

Weeks

6&7

Synthesising

Weeks 3, 4 & 5

Week 7 Culminating project phase Children make new/revised plan based on

interests

Re-plan based on observations

Formulate new plan together

Week 6 Culminating project phase Children reflect on learning, re-visit

documentation

Analyse data, reflect

De-brief about learning implement changes

based on learning

LEGEND Project phases represented by underlined text Children represented

by italicised text

Teachers represented by normal text Collaborative

(teachers and

children) elements

represented by bold

text


The children’s roles (represented in italicised text in Figure 8) are outlined in the

following steps: in week 1, the children participated in the program which involved

planned group sessions and indoor and outdoor play sessions; in week 2, the children

interacted with the learning environment, materials, peers and staff; in weeks 3 and

4, the children directed their own learning, in other words they explored their own

interests with the teacher as facilitator; in week 5, children continued to ‘drive’ their

own learning, being encouraged to ask questions and supported to find answers; in

week 6, children reflected on their learning by revisiting artifacts such as the project

documentation that was collated and individual student portfolios; and, in week 7,

children could re-plan what they would like to do next, based on this learning cycle.

The teacher’s roles. As the teacher-researcher (represented by normal text within

Figure 8), I began, in week 1, by observing children and how they were engaging in,

discussing and exploring environmental interests. This was undertaken in order to

plan for, and facilitate, their learning in the project; in week 2, I provided materials

and resources to stimulate learning about the environment and sustainability based

on my observations of the children; in weeks 3 and 4, I continued to facilitate and

scaffold experiential child learning and to document the project as it unfolded. I also

encouraged the children to think critically about environmental issues; in week 5, I

acted as co-learner and data-collector while children co-constructed their knowledge

throughout the project; in week 6, I analyzed data with a view to understanding what

had happened; and, in week 7, I identified further plans based on these analyses.

The collaborative roles of teachers and children learning together are represented

in bold text. In week 1, research participants interacted with one another and

selected a topic of interest. An interest in rainforests was identified after a child

shared a piece of artwork about the rainforest; in week 2, interactions continued


within the learning environment and investigations were made into the topic of

interest. Interests included developing an environment model and conducting a

nature hunt; in weeks 3 and 4, collaborative plans about what to do, what learning

was sought and ways to proceed were made, topic investigations continued; in week

5, research participants were collaboratively involved in project-based learning and

findings were represented; in week 6, together the research participants de-briefed

about their involvement in project-based learning and implemented change; and, in

week 7, new and revised plans were formulated collaboratively about what to learn

and explore next.

Principles of community-based action research also had value for this study

because of the desire to use the children’s projects to engage with and learn from

parents about sustainability issues. Stringer (1999) states that a fundamental premise

of community-based action research is that it commences with an interest in the

problems of a group, a community, or an organisation. Its purpose is to assist people

in extending their understanding of their situation and thus resolving problems that

confront them. In this case, the particular kindergarten community had expressed

interest in environmental issues, especially water conservation, and worked to

develop closer ties with the neighbouring nature reserve.

Although this study is not technically a community-based action research, it is

argued that these principles are important in all levels of action research.

Community-based action research is participatory in nature and operates as a process

of inquiry that can be summarised as: democratic, enabling the participation of all

people; equitable, acknowledging people’s equality of worth; liberating, providing

freedom from oppressive, debilitating conditions; and life enhancing, enabling the

expression of people’s full human potential (Stringer 1999).


Data Collection and Analysis

Data are the evidence collected about a particular situation (McNiff, Lomax &

Whitehead, 2003) and, in this case, evidence about young children engaging with

education for sustainability. The data needed to be rich and complex to assist my

understanding of the research interest (Richards, 2005). Further data collection

could be characterised as ‘messy’ (Richards, 2005). The research questions for this

action research study did not clearly indicate the data required to enable me to

formulate answers to the research questions. This meant that a flexible approach to

data collection and analysis was required (Richards, 2005). Data collection and data

analysis techniques for this study are now discussed.

The qualitative research data collected were descriptive, non-numerical and

reflective of the complexities of interactions involved in the teaching and learning

that occurred within the classroom (Parsons & Brown, 2002). I aimed to conduct

‘low-intrusion’ data collection methods (Edwards, 2001, p.129). Data collection

evolved and emerged during the children’s participation in their environment project.

Because a co-constructivist approach recognises that individual learners construct

knowledge differently, it was necessary to have a data collection process that

allowed for a variety of evidence. Therefore data were not limited to just a few

types; instead varied types of data, discussed later, were collected as the children

represented their learning in a range of ways. Further, this research project primarily

used emergent forms of data, from a small number of participants located at one site,

rather than using preset data instruments and covering a larger number of

participants (Creswell, 2005).

It was important to consider the appropriateness of data collected from children

and to collect data in such a way that they gave a sound reflection of the children’s


perspectives. Therefore, the data collection focused on recording what children said

(children’s voice) and what they did (participation) (Murdoch & Le Mescam, 2006).

This took the form of individual, small group and whole class records. Individual

student portfolios, including artifacts (such as children’s drawings and diagrams),

notes made about discussions with small groups and individuals that were held as a

natural part of unfolding project work but were less formal than interviewing were

maintained. Data were collected, stored and dated for the seven week period of the

study. The following list details data that were collected:

• Participant observations

• Teacher reflections

• Photographs and PowerPoints

• Conversation transcripts and community of practice

• Curriculum plans, kindergarten newsletters, letters to parents, and

management committee reports

• Project documentation, children’s portfolios and artifacts

• Parent emails

Participant observation refers to data that I collected as the classroom teacher and

researcher. This data included selected anecdotal and descriptive observations

(Angrosino, 2008) that offered insight into the phenomenon being studied (Edwards,

2001). Active participant observation was the most common data collection

technique employed in this study (Mills, 2003). Participation observation was an

appropriate data collection method as I already experienced an established rapport

with the research participants and participation in the research context (Angrosino,

2008) and, therefore, could provide a unique ‘insider’ perspective (MacNaughton &

Hughes, 2009).


Teacher reflections ‘tracked’ my journey and changing interpretations over time

(Edwards, 2001). Teacher reflections also included notes about my assumptions,

preconceptions and evaluations related to teaching and learning (MacLean & Mohr,

1999). Self-reflective thoughts provided me with a timeline, an illustration of

general points made, a provision of raw data and a ‘chart’ of progress throughout the

research process (McNiff, Lomax & Whitehead, 2003). Of particular significance

was that these teacher reflections illuminated key themes as they emerged from the

data. These key themes are discussed in the following chapter.

Photographs and PowerPoints formed part of the data in this study and were used

in a variety of ways. As the children were not able to read and write, photographs

were used as tools to encourage their reflections, and for documentation about

children’s activities and participation. The use of digital photography was already an

accepted method of record-keeping within the kindergarten; children often asked for

their work to be photographed. Also noteworthy is that the kindergarten carries out a

PowerPoint presentation each afternoon. This daily presentation showed

photographs taken during the day often coupled with explanatory text including

information about what children had said, how an activity had proceeded, curriculum

links, and what future plans had been formulated as a result. PowerPoints were

created collaboratively with children, during lunch. Children’s lunch tables were

near the classroom whiteboard and this allowed children to contribute their ideas as

they saw the photographs appear on the screen. Creating the daily PowerPoint this

way allowed children to share their ideas and for those children who were not

featured in the photographs, to hear about other children’s activities and learning.

Fifteen to twenty minutes was set aside each afternoon for teachers, children and

parents to view the PowerPoint presentation together. Often there was discussion


about the day’s events stimulated by a photograph presented during the PowerPoint.

Photographs and printed PowerPoint were also used in individual children’s

portfolios and as part of the regular documentation kept of children’s project work.

Conversation transcripts and community of practice. Notes about conversations

with the teacher aide, children and teacher of the other class (known as red group),

my community of practice, were kept. Transcripts of conversations were also a

source of data. Of central significance for this study was that the ‘voice’ of children

was heard, that their experiences were understood, and that their participation was

genuine and not tokenised. Conversation transcripts ensured accurate records of

research participants’ speech (MacNaughton & Hughes, 2009). Many opportunities

for conversation were created and encouraged during the study. This occurred

during whole class, small group and individual interactions.

Also significant for this study, were handwritten conversation transcripts for

discussions with my community of practice. The teacher aide and I shared regular

conversations about our interpretations of children’s activities and participation. The

teacher aide confirmed and broadened my interpretations by sharing her impressions

with me. The red group teacher was also an important participant even though she

and I were not teaching on the same days during the study. Regular staff meetings

provided a forum for us to share about the ways the children’s environment project

influenced the red group and its influence on the kindergarten as a whole. This

contributed to the culture of change at the kindergarten that followed the study and is

discussed in detail later.

Curriculum plans, kindergarten newsletters, letters to parents and management

committee reports. Variously plans, newsletters, letters and reports were kept as

data. An example of a letter to families and a monthly kindergarten newsletter can


be found in Appendix I. Figure 13, in chapter 4, gives a week by week overview of

participant activities including curriculum details for the 7 week period of the study.

Documentation, children’s portfolios and artifacts. Data collection was

purposive, data collection tools were selected in order to facilitate the answering of

the research questions (Richards, 2005). Documentation such as children’s

portfolios and artifacts were considered to be emergent forms of data. Therefore,

less predictable in nature. Unlike curriculum plans which were created as a regular

part of each days documentation dependent on children’s self-directed activities.

This contrasts starkly with more traditional research or learning methods, for

example completion of pre-set tasks, where the teacher can expect one completed

task per child. I endeavoured to be alert to emerging themes in the data and analytic

notes that were kept (Edwards, 2001) as, in qualitative research, data generate

categories (Richards, 2005). Portfolios contained specific evidence of individual

children’s participation in project work. Portfolios also featured significantly as this

form of data reflected the variety of learning ‘paths’ that individual children

followed. For the purposes of this study evidence of children’s learning was

systematically collected during the natural unfolding of project work (Harris Helm &

Gronlund, 2000). Examples of children’s craft, for example Figure 15 in chapter 4,

were added to their individual portfolios.

Parent emails. An unexpected form of data were parent emails. On two

occasions parents emailed comments to me about their children’s involvement

during and after the study. These emails contributed to the research in two ways.

First, I recognised the intergenerational influence the children’s environment project

was having. Second, I considered the potentially longlasting influence that

children’s involvement in the study might have.


To comment generally on the data collected, this data were child-centred, in other

words the focus was on recording information about the children. Although the

physical process of documenting, for example taking a photograph or writing down

words, involved all research participants. It took a range of forms depending on

children’s activities and the direction the project took. Katz and Chard (1996)

explained documentation as a form of observation and record-keeping including

work samples, photographs, teacher comments/observations, anecdotes, tape-

recordings and written reflections. As discussed earlier, the use of documentation

was largely inspired by the Reggio Emilia approach which has been credited with

making children’s learning more visible. Katz and Chard (1996) state that “the

documentation of the children’s ideas, thoughts, feelings, and reports are also

available to the children to record, preserve, and stimulate their memories of

significant experiences, thereby further enhancing their learning related to the topics

investigated” (para. 6).

Data Analysis

To generate evidence from data, careful attention was paid to data analysis. Data

analysis occurred for the one action research cycle carried out during this study.

This is now discussed. Although there are guidelines, there is no one accepted

approach to analysing qualitative data (Creswell, 2005). For the purposes of this

study, data analysis was achieved through organisation, description, interpretation

and evaluation of data (McNiff, Lomax & Whitehead, 2003; Parsons & Brown,

2002). This assisted me in assigning meaning, structure and order to the data

(Anfara, Brown & Mangione, 2002). In the study, data collection and data analysis

occurred simultaneously and were ongoing processes. The aim was to show how

things had been done differently and to comment on the value of the changes


(McNiff, Lomax & Whitehead, 2003). For this study it meant identifying participant

activities that were co-constructivist or transformative in nature. An example of this

was when children thought critically about environmental issues and unsustainable

practices, such as their water use, and implemented change towards more sustainable

practices, including their water conservation measures introduced for sandplay

(using only small containers and ensuring that the play was purposeful so that water

was not wasted). The children’s participation was characterised as transformative

activity, as critical thinking is a transformative practice informed by critical theory.

Figure 14, in the following chapter, gives a week by week overview of the study,

which identifies co-constructivist and transformative participant activities in detail.

Organisation of the data were data-driven (Edwards, 2001) and matched to the

research concern (McNiff, Lomax & Whitehead, 2003). This involved thematic

categorisation and data analysis (Edwards, 2001; MacNaughton & Hughes, 2009) in

terms of the study’s three research questions. Therefore, data were categorised as

follows: data related to project work on environmental/sustainability topics (RQ 1);

data related to child agency (RQ 2); and, data related to teacher-researcher’s journey

(RQ 3). Each category was supported by a clearly defined descriptor which

distinguished it from other categories and thus made it possible to be used by other

researchers (Edwards, 2001). It was anticipated that, within these three broad

categories, narrower sub-themes would emerge. For example, data which tracked

my learning journey (RQ3) reflected a change in my beliefs as the study progressed

(Edwards, 2001). Therefore, a number of sub-themes emerged from the data

analysis.

My own assessment and interpretation of what the results meant were critical

elements of the data analysis process. I had the job of searching the data for patterns,


new understandings and explanations (Blaxter, Hughes & Tight, 1996; Mills, 2003).

As data were analysed, themes were found to have occurred within and across the

categories that had been formed to answer the research questions. Three key themes

were identified and are discussed in the following chapter.

The explicit goal of the study’s data were to provide description (Glaser, 2004).

As anticipated, the data provided ‘thick’ and ‘rich’ description which led to the

identification of these salient themes (McNiff, Lomax & Whitehead, 2003; Anfara,

Brown & Mangione, 2002). The major virtue of qualitative research and data

analysis was their combined ability to tell a well-substantiated story that used

‘voices’ from the field, gave detailed snapshots of the phenomena under

investigation and highlighted evidence that brought the study’s argument to life

(Edwards, 2001).

Research Ethics

This section deals with the study’s research ethics. Issues of ethical clearance and

ethical behaviour are outlined and child participation in research is discussed. This

study took the view that child participation needed to be maximised to ensure that

children’s voices were heard. Finally, the ethical process of active verbal and non-

verbal listening to children is described.

Ethical clearance was sought from the QUT Human Research Ethics Committee

and complied with (Category: Human, Approval number: 1000000799). I worked

within the key ethical principles of respect for people, beneficence and justice

(Australian Government, 2007; Farrell, 2005). I conducted myself according to the

Early Childhood Australia’s Code of Ethics (ECA, 2006), a copy of which can be

found in Appendix C. The study was conducted without revealing the identities of

the participants and only data of a public and lawful nature related to the research


interest were used (McNiff, Lomax & Whitehead, 2003). Copies of the participant

information for QUT research project (Appendix F) and the consent form for QUT

research project (Appendix G) are included in the appendices.

Parents and children were informed about the nature of the study and their

consent was gained. Separate letters indicating consent were sought, one from

parents and one from children. Traditional research approaches seek consent from

parents of the children concerned. This study included children in the decision

making process in order to uphold the democratic intentions of this research

(Mackey & Vaealiki, 2011). I adapted the letter of permission for parents to include

a picture for children to indicate their willingness to participate (smiling face) or to

decline to participate (non-smiling face) as used by Theobald (2009) in her

unpublished thesis ‘Participation and social order in the playground’. A copy of this

letter can be found in appendix G. All of the 22 children in the blue group gave

consent to participate in this study and pseudonyms were assigned for each child

participant.

Child participation in research needs to be genuine and not tokenised. Grover

(2004) states that “allowing children to be active participants in the research process

enhances their status as individuals with inherent rights to participation in society

more generally and the right to be heard in their authentic voice” (p.90). Danby and

Farrell (2004) state that “issues around the competence of children to participate in

research pose challenges to educational researchers and to the young participants and

their families, within what are seen as increasingly risky and regulated research

environments” (p.35). Here, Danby and Farrell (2004) are referring to research

views of children as incompetent, needing protection and potentially harmed by

research. Traditionally, children have operated under adult governance, in other


words adults acting as gatekeepers (Danby & Farrell, 2004). The contrasting view of

children participating in research is that they are socially capable, in other words

“reliable informants of their own experiences” (Danby & Farrell, 2004, p.40).

I took the view that children are capable and competent participants in their own

lives, hence the study’s approaches were designed to maximise opportunities for

children to participate. I believe that conducting research that does not allow

children to have a voice is unethical and unjust to children. As the teacher-

researcher, I observed and recorded what happened; this makes it necessary to define

what is meant by listening. “The ethical processes of children participating in the

research enterprise involve researchers listening to children regarding events and

experiences that relate to them” (Danby & Farrell, 2004, p.44). Clark (2005) states

that “a view of the competent, active child will provide a positive starting point for

listening to young children” (p.492). Like Clark (2005), my understanding is that

listening is an active process, rather than a passive one. This approach potentially

offers new directions for early childhood research (Danby & Farrell, 2004).

Listening encompasses both verbal and non-verbal exchanges and expressions.

Listening involves what happens during an experience and not just comments made

on the final product/conclusion. In order to enact this view of listening to children

and ensuring they were heard, data were collected in the variety of ways listed

previously.

Qualitative Research Validity

The purpose of this section is to explain how I sought validity for this research.

Figure 9 provides an overview of criteria for assessing research validity for

qualitative and quantitative research. First, as this research is qualitative, the

qualitative instruments for research validity (credibility, transferability,


dependability and confirmability) represented in Figure 9 are explained. Second,

this section discusses triangulation as a way to validate qualitative research. Third,

the specific aims and validation processes of action research are outlined.

Qualitative research aims to achieve credibility in order to inspire the confidence

of others in relevant fields (MacLean & Mohr, 1999). Qualitative research is based

on the researcher making credible judgments rather than measurable results. Unless

other people agree with the researcher’s judgments, the research will not be regarded

as credible and the findings could be construed as opinion (McNiff, Lomax &

Whitehead, 2003).

Figure 9. Quantitative and qualitative criteria for assessing research quality and

rigor (Anfara, Brown & Mangione, 2002, p. 30).

Qualitative research, including action research case study, seeks to develop

deeper understanding of the particular study focus therefore qualitative instruments

do not seek or claim measurement reliability (MacLean & Mohr, 1999). In

quantitative research, demonstrating rigor and reliability is simpler because if the

same research methods are employed, similar results should occur. However, in


qualitative research, demonstrating rigour and dependability (dependability is

equivalent to reliability as demonstrated in Figure 9) is more difficult as data from

two similar qualitative studies will rarely be the same (MacNaughton & Hughes,

2009). Therefore, positivist terms and positivist criteria (internal/external validity,

reliability and objectivity) are replaced by credibility, transferability, dependability,

and confirmability when qualitative research methods are employed (Denzin &

Lincoln, 2008; Trochim, 2006).

Research credibility involves achieving believable results from the participants’

perspective (Hughes, 2001; Trochim, 2006). Transferability refers to generalisability

or ability to transfer or replicate the research study within another context. This is

sought through the provision of thorough descriptions and research assumptions

(Trochim, 2006). Dependability is concerned with the researcher’s ability to explain

the shifting contextual nature within which the study takes place. This requires

describing changes that occur and how these impact on the study (Trochim, 2006).

Confirmability is concerned with the degree to which others can confirm or

substantiate the study’s results (Trochim, 2006).

An additional way of ensuring credibility is the inclusion of input from the

researcher’s ‘community of practice’. To help ensure credibility in this study,

regular times to reflect, discuss and evaluate the research (with my community of

practice which comprised of the kindergarten’s staff) occurred (Walsh & Gardner,

2005). Colleagues, including the teacher aide and red group teacher, were

encouraged to act as ‘critical’ friends as their contributions provided different

insights and perspectives (MacLean & Mohr, 1999). Standard work meetings

provided me with regular forums to test arguments with a critical audience; identify

weaknesses; suggest modifications; consider the data and how it should be analysed


and presented; sharpen claims to knowledge and ensure that data supported these;

develop new ideas; generate enthusiasm to continue the research and to gain support

(McNiff, Lomax & Whitehead, 2003). Records of reflections, discussions and

evaluations with professional colleagues, children and families were kept. Sharing

observations and data with the children and encouraging them to give input and

interpretation (MacLean & Mohr, 1999) made up a natural part of the unfolding

project.

Qualitative research data achieves transferability by providing thick, rich

description thus allowing the reader to ‘see’ and ‘hear’ what happened, what the

children said and did (Schwalbach, 2003). Qualitative researchers use observation to

capture the participants’ perspectives (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008). Thick, rich

descriptions contain interpretive observations, imagery, related information and are

as comprehensive as the observer can make them (Richards, 2005).

The study used triangulation to ensure research dependability, confirmability and

credibility (Figure 9). Triangulation occurred when the data were collected from a

minimum of three sources (MacNaughton, Rolfe & Siraj-Blatchford, 2001;

Schwalbach, 2003). For example, observations were backed up with transcripts of

conversations and artifacts (MacNaughton, Rolfe & Siraj-Blatchford, 2001). I aimed

to triangulate data to show how different data supported my research explanations

and interpretations (McNiff, Lomax & Whitehead, 2003). This assisted me in the

provision of rich data which, in turn, assisted in bias reduction (MacNaughton, Rolfe

& Siraj-Blatchford, 2001).

As this study used action research as its methodology, detail about achieving

credibility in action research is now discussed. McNiff, Lomax and Whitehead

(2003) describe a threefold process in achieving credibility in action research. First,


action research seeks to make a claim to knowledge. Second, this claim is critically

examined against the available evidence (interpreted from data). Third, others are

involved in the validation process. In other words, new knowledge emerges during

the research process. The researcher then makes a claim about this knowledge

(McNiff, Lomax & Whitehead, 2003). This claim is strengthened when there is

evidence of critical examination by others (McNiff, Lomax & Whitehead, 2003). In

this study, critical examination was provided by the teacher aide and red group

teacher.

Research Limitations

In the previous section, possible ways to ensure action research credibility were

identified. It is necessary, however, to identify potential research limitations. The

three main research limitations identified for this study were: problematic data

collection; generalisation of research results, and; the impact of the researcher’s

presence on the study. Each of these is now discussed.

Potential problems related to qualitative study, including action research, include

the pacing of data collection, the volume of data generated, the procedure, and the

rigor of data analysis (Glaser, 2004). Due to the qualitative nature of this study, and

the emergent nature of the project under investigation, it was difficult to accurately

determine at the start what research data were needed. Potentially this meant that I

was not able to clearly separate description from explanation and may have confused

the data and evidence and not recorded all details of validation meetings (McNiff,

Lomax & Whitehead, 2003). To offset the potentially problematic nature of data

collection in action research, I specified a data collection regime including: limiting

data collection to one action research cycle, and identifying major and minor themes,

under which data were organised, early in the study.


I also realised that this case study’s results would not be generalisable to other

contexts as they pertained to my specific educational setting (Schwalbach, 2003).

One research study, unique to its context, cannot be replicated exactly in a different

context. Furthermore, interpretations used by me, as the researcher, could be

analysed and interpreted differently by others within the field (Walsh & Gardner,

2005). For example, a measure chosen to indicate children’s engagement with a

particular environment issue might be judged quite differently by someone else

(Walsh & Gardner, 2005). It is important that researchers test their interpretations

by opening their research up to the judgment of others (Walsh & Gardner, 2005). In

recognition of this, I regularly ‘opened up’ the study’s research for feedback, most

often with the teacher aide, red group teacher and my research supervisors. This

occurred at regular staff meetings, committee meetings, and during other

professional exchanges such as meetings with my research supervisors. Although

results from this study are not able to be generalised, the aim of action research is not

to produce generalisable results. Action research aims to produce new ways of

thinking and new forms of theory (McNiff, Lomax & Whitehead, 2003). Rather than

produce generalisable results I aimed to produce a report which synthesised

improved teaching practices with educational theory about education for

sustainability within early childhood education. Therefore, whether the study’s

results were limited because they cannot be generalised is arguable.

Qualitative researchers need to acknowledge that they (the researchers) disrupt

the case. I took care not to overtly distort the case by my presence (Edwards, 2001).

However, I do recognise my personal subjectivity (Schwalbach, 2003). Action

research is an intimate activity by nature, therefore it was an impossible challenge to

remain objective and open (Mills, 2003). Action researchers need to develop the


habits and skills of self-reflexivity but also to acknowledge and articulate known

perspectives and biases (Herr & Anderson, 2005). After all, I had a motive for

choosing and pursuing the study as well as certain expectations regarding the

outcomes (Burns, 1994). I aimed to produce a meaningful study that would lead to

growth in understanding of underlying issues and complexities (MacLean & Mohr,

1999) about early childhood education for sustainability. Every effort was made to

allow the ‘voices’ of the research participants to be heard. Opportunities to ‘hear’

the research participants served to lessen distortion of data analysis (McNiff, Lomax

& Whitehead, 2003).

Although there were some identified research limitations, the underpinning

growth in understanding (of teaching and learning) resulting from this study should

still inspire confidence and make contributions to others in the field. For me, the

study has contributed to changes in my teaching practices, a central tenet of

practitioner research. As Borgia and Schuler (1996) state, participation in

practitioner research has potential benefits for early childhood educators including

improved classroom practice, meaningful child experiences leading to improved

learning, professional development and classrooms where teachers and children co-

learn. This study also provides other early childhood educators with practical and

‘do-able’ examples of young children engaging in education for sustainability

through meaningful and motivating projects in child-centred teaching and learning

environments, both indoor and outdoor.

To summarise, in this section I have discussed various potential research

limitations including potential problems associated with qualitative data, research

findings that cannot be generalised across contexts, and my own impact on the study.

A further limitation was that data related to the long term impact of children’s


experiences with education for sustainability were not collected given the timeframe

and range of this study. I recognise that, although this may currently be a limitation,

it presents a potential further research opportunity.

Chapter Summary

In this chapter I discussed action research case study as an appropriate

methodology to explore education for sustainability through the implementation of

the Project Approach to teaching and learning within a particular early childhood

education setting. The research questions were outlined. Figure 5 represented how

the research was ‘nested’ – the children’s project ‘sat’ within the action research

project, which ‘sat’ within reflective teaching. Action research and action research

case study were explained and reasons for their selection were provided. Parallels

between the action research cycle and my usual early childhood curriculum planning

were drawn and represented in a synthesised way through Figure 7. Descriptions of

the research site and research participants were given and data collection and

analysis were described. Issues of research ethics, qualitative research validation,

and research limitations were acknowledged. The following chapter presents the

study’s data and their analysis.

Chapter 4: Findings and Discussion 106 Sharon Stuhmcke EdD Thesis 2012

CHAPTER FOUR

Findings and Discussion

The purpose of this chapter is to discuss and analyse the findings of this study

regarding children’s participation in an environmental project, referred to as the

‘children’s environment project’ throughout this chapter. There are two layers of

discussion and analysis here. The first layer refers to the children’s environment

project that took place over a seven week period. It constituted a significant part, but

not entire, kindergarten program during this time. The second layer is a meta-

analysis of the key themes that arose from the data. This appears towards the end of

the chapter as a synthesis and is a response to the study’s research questions.

This chapter draws upon a variety of data, described in Chapter 3, designed to

give the reader insights into the children’s experiences during the course of their

project (MacNaughton & Hughes, 2009). In some cases, snapshots of activities are

provided. In others more detailed, in-depth data are presented. As discussed in

Chapter 3, collecting a variety of project data ensured that opportunities for children

to participate and express themselves were enhanced, ultimately contributing to the

research findings (Mackey & Vaealiki, 2011).

The Study’s Action Research Cycle

The chapter structure follows the 6-step action research cycle sequence as

indicated by Figure 7 in Chapter 3. The children’s environment project is

represented as step 4 of the action research cycle (in Figure 7) as it occurred ‘within’

this fieldwork step. Figure 8, presented in the previous chapter, details this step.


Figure 7. The study’s action research cycle and the children’s environment project.

Steps 1 and 2. Reflection and Raising Questions

The kindergarten where this study took place was a single classroom (details

about the kindergarten were included in the methodology chapter) shared by two

teachers and class groups identified in Figure 10 as blue group and red group.

Attendance patterns for each class group, a five day fortnight from 9 am until 2.30

pm, are also indicated in Figure 10. This study directly involved one class, referred

to throughout as the blue group. This group consisted of twenty-two children, the

teacher aide and Teacher A (myself). The other class (Teacher B, the same teacher

aide and red group) were indirectly involved with the study in ways that are

discussed later in the Chapter. I was the regular teacher of the blue group (Teacher

A in Figure 10) as well as the teacher-researcher in this study and, therefore, refer to

myself as ‘I’ throughout this Chapter.

The children’s environment project

The action research

study

Introductory Phase

Culminating Phase

Synthesising Phase


Monday

9.00 am –

2.30 pm

Tuesday

9.00 am –

2.30 pm

Wednesday

9.00 am –

2.30 pm

Thursday

9.00 am –

2.30 pm

Friday

9.00 am –

2.30 pm

Blue Group

(22 children)

Teacher A

Teacher aide

Blue Group

Teacher A

Teacher aide

Blue Group

Teacher A

Teacher aide

Red Group

Teacher B

Teacher aide

Red Group

Teacher B

Teacher aide

Blue Group

Teacher A

Teacher aide

Blue Group

Teacher A

Teacher aide

Red Group

(22 children)

Teacher B

Teacher aide

Red Group

Teacher B

Teacher aide

Red Group

Teacher B

Teacher aide

Figure 10. Class groups, staffing and attendance patterns at the kindergarten

Various pre-cursors that favour environmentally sustainable practices were

already in place at the kindergarten prior to the study taking place. These are

represented in Figure 11. They included:

• The kindergarten’s physical location on the edge of a nature reserve; the large

playground which features natural grasses and plants and its landscaping

(Figure 12);

• The kindergarten’s environmental policy (see Appendix H) which influences

the educational program;

• Environmental practices including the use of water-saving sensor taps and

water tank to address water conservation practices;

• Composting;

• Environmentally friendly cleaning practices;

• A planting policy which aligns with the neighbouring reserve; and,


• Litter-less lunch practices which is explained in the Kindergarten’s

Handbook (p.43), with families being encouraged to provide foods placed in

containers that are able to be washed and re-used, rather than providing food

in plastic film or disposable packaging.

Figure 12. Photos of the kindergarten’s physical environment

Other pre-cursors that potentially favoured education for sustainability included

the Project Approach as the major pedagogical strategy and, embedded into this, a

Kinder-garten’s

environment policy

Large, natural

playground

Kinder- garten’s location

Environment -ally friendly

cleaning practices

Water tank and sensor

taps – water conservation

Composting

Planting policy in line with

Reserve

Litter-less lunches

Existing sustainable practices

Figure 11. Sustainable practices at the kindergarten prior to the study


democratic approach to curriculum. A democratic approach refers to the shared or

negotiated approach to curriculum planning used by teachers and children rather than

a mainly teacher-directed approach to curriculum (MacNaughton & Williams, 2009).

The impetus for this study came from my desire to broaden my existing teaching

practices in order to more completely embed education for sustainability into the

kindergarten’s program. Although I had incorporated environmental learning into

past programs and projects I recognised that this could be best described as teaching

and learning that occurred in the environment or about the environment. It had

become evident to me that contemporary education for sustainability was much more

focused on learning for the environment where change was created and action was

taken towards positively sustaining the natural environment (Davis, 2010).

To summarise my thinking in this early stage, I had recognised that the Project

Approach in use at the kindergarten and the teaching and learning approaches

advocated by the education for sustainability field (transformative education

approaches) had similarities but also significant differences. I understood that while

the Project Approach was founded in co-constructivism and focused on co-

construction of learning, education for sustainability was founded in transformative

educational approaches and focused on creating change. For example, a co-

constructed learning experience might involve children’s investigations into energy

conservation. In this instance children might research what energy conservation is

about using books and the internet. A transformative learning experience, however,

might involve children using their knowledge about energy conservation and

enacting their own ideas to conserve energy within their educational setting, in their

homes and in their communities.


This raised questions for me as a teacher because I did not want to abandon the

teaching and learning approach that had value for me and that I had been using

successfully with children. I believed, and continue to believe, that the project

approach has merit in early childhood classrooms because it is child-centred and

builds teaching and learning around topics and issues that are of interest to and have

meaning for children. I concurred with Harris Helm and Katz (2011) who describe

the Project Approach as a means of achieving child-responsive, meaningful and

engaging curriculum for young children.

Nevertheless, I wanted to incorporate education for sustainability into my

pedagogical repertoire. As a teacher I had reflected on my own practices to

recognise that, while children in my classes had frequently engaged in learning and

co-construction of knowledge in and about the environment, the additional steps of

participation and taking action for the environment were missing. I wanted to

develop my pedagogical practices so that children were able to participate in and act

for the environment based on the knowledge they co-constructed through their

projects. This meant that I would take the co-constructivist teaching and learning

process already employed and integrate transformative pedagogies thus encouraging

children to exercise greater participation and agency in relation to various

environmental and sustainability issues.

This also meant that my teaching philosophy was challenged. Although I had felt

that I had been practising from a belief that young children are capable and

competent I realised that my teaching strategies needed to encourage children as

action-takers. I agreed with Littledyke and McCrea (2009) who suggest that co-

constructivist teaching approaches alone lack the child agency and change attributes

necessary to address sustainability. These authors identify children as active,


powerful agents contributing to their own learning, especially in collaborative

contexts. These reflections caused me to examine, reconsider and reformulate my

teaching practices. Gough (1997) suggests that both critical theory (from which

transformative teaching approaches are based) and co-constructivism can contribute

to the development of education for sustainability. I now suggest that this

combination also strengthens early childhood education. It is argued that this

combination potentially enables young children to co-construct knowledge about

education for sustainability, to act on their learning, participate, make decisions and

take actions for sustainability.

Step 3. Planning to Seek Answers

I continued to reflect and research in two areas. First, I used my research in early

childhood education and education for sustainability to form a conceptual framework

that I then used to inform the study (Figure 5, in Chapter 2). Second, I investigated

action research which I saw as an appropriate methodology for practitioner-based

research. It was also during step 3 that I formed the study’s research questions

which were outlined earlier. Together these contributed to the re-theorising of my

own practice which led to the children’s environment project, outlined next, which

was the centerpiece of this action research case study.

Steps 4 and 5. Data Collection and Analysis for the Children’s Environment Project

This section provides an outline of the children’s environment project. It is

described using the customary phases of the Project Approach: introductory,

synthesising and culminating. Figure 13 gives a weekly overview of the study and

shows the key events and the key activities of a co-constructed nature and those of a

transformative nature that were engaged in along with the data sources used in the


study. Figure 13 succinctly summarises the fieldwork and data collection methods

are fully explored and explained.

It is important to note here that children’s names have been omitted in places

throughout this chapter when comments were made during a group session when it

was difficult to identify a specific child or assign ‘ownership’ to comments as many

were agreed to, or repeated, by more than one child. This problematic aspect of the

research process will be further discussed in the final chapter. On several occasions

throughout this study, either myself or the teacher aide recorded comments,

suggestions and ideas put forward by children in group contexts. In such

discussions, more often than not, children spoke simultaneously, or ideas and

comments were made quickly (or similar comments were made by more than one

child). It was difficult to identify who actually made each contribution. This raised

a dilemma for me as a researcher in that I was concerned about assigning ownership

to the thoughts, suggestions, ideas and comments being made by children in this

study. However, as this study was concerned with learning that is co-constructed in

the social context of the classroom, I felt it was important to include contributions

made during group sessions even when individual contributors were not all able to

be identified, or when multiple children made similar contributions.

Synthesising

phase

Week 5

Rainforest puppet

show

Environment model continues

Children transferred learning from rainforest

puppet show into their play & work around their

environment model

Children represented their learning & understanding (from the puppet show) in their

drawings

Teacher & teacher aide scaffolded children’s

demonstrated interests by providing related books

& materials

Teacher, teacher aide & children explored

rainforest animals (in particular those from the

puppet show) & discussed / explored issues

including camouflage, human threat to wildlife &

habitat reduction

Children continued to identify & discuss

environmental issues such as human impacts

on animals and environments (habitat

destruction & pollution) Children designed a ‘rubbish crane’ to remove

pollution from trees & air

Children expressed their choice for pro-

environmental behaviours through drawings

* Teacher reflection

* Curriculum plan

* Daily PowerPoints

* Parental reflection about recycling (email)

Culminating phase

Week 6

Stage Three Documentation of

children’s

environment project

Environment model

continues

Children reflected & recalled their learning & involvement

Teacher & teacher aide recorded what children

said & chose (eg pictures from PowerPoints)

Teacher, teacher aide & children decided on the

narrative & photos for documentation

Children continued to practice & implement strategies that they introduced about recycling,

water conservation & pollution

Children continued to demonstrate pro-

environmental preferences during play

* Teacher reflection * Curriculum plan

* Project documentation

* Parent email about possum

box & recycling

* daily PowerPoints

Culminating

phase

Week 7

Creation of class

book

Environment model

continues

Children suggested words and drew pictures for

their book

Teacher acted as the ‘editor’ by combining similar

ideas together & recording children’s words

Teacher, teacher aide & children ‘published’ the

book

Children saw themselves as teachers when

they indicated their desire to ‘make a book to

teach others’


* Curriculum plan

* Class book

* Daily PowerPoints

Post study End of year

‘celebration of learning’

Children suggested that trees, flowers, animals, a

possum box etc be incorporated into the backdrop they were making for their end of year production

Children frequently referred to their involvement

& learning from ‘the children’s environment

project’

Teacher & teacher aide continued to observe

children’s behaviours, practices and references to

their learning & involvement in ‘the children’s

environment project’

Teacher, teacher aide & children constructed

back-drops & chose songs for the end of year

production

Children continued to implement strategies

about recycling, pollution control & water conservation

Children displayed pro-environmental

behaviours, attitudes & practices

*Red group children instigated installation of

a possum box in the playground

When the ‘celebration of learning’ was held –

children chose songs & backdrop - these were

explained with statements such as the ‘possum

box’ (part of the backdrop) was made because

children had suggested that people and

animals should live together


* Curriculum plan

Figure 13. Steps 4 and 5: Weekly overview of the fieldwork based on the children’s environment project

Project phase Key stages

Key participant co-constructed activities Key participant transformative activities Data sources

Pre-cursors Established co-

constructivist approach – the

Project Approach

Children, teacher & teacher aide involved in

child-centred & play-based pedagogy. Curriculum planned from observations of children interests.

Environmental education in and about nature

Children, teacher & teacher aide involved in

democratic decision-making about the curriculum

* Kindy environment policy

* Physical location within a Reserve

Introductory

phase

Week 1

Stage One

Playground plans

Rainforest collage

Nature hunt

Children made representations & drawing about

what they would like in the playground

Teacher & teacher aide took observations of

children’s activities & reflected on these

Teacher read ‘The Nature Hunt’

Collaborative - current interests were listed and a

key interest identified

Collaborative - Conducted nature hunt in

playground

Children suggested and implemented rules

about treatment of flora & fauna


* Curriculum plan

* Newsletter about playground

* ‘Ideas’ board for playground

ideas

* Daily PowerPoints

* Children’s playground

drawings & representations

Introductory phase

Week 2

Environment model begins

Children asked questions about waterfalls & indicated they wanted to make one

Children co-constructed knowledge about the

water cycle

Teacher & teacher aide provided materials (to

facilitate model construction) & educational

materials with an environmental focus

Teacher read Jeannie Baker books to children –

these books contain pro-environmental messages

Teacher, teacher aide & children ‘googled’

pictures of waterfalls, discuss plans to construct

Children enacted pro-environmental attitudes Children proposed solution to environmental

sustainability issue - ‘people homes & animal

homes should be together’

* Teacher reflection * Curriculum plan

* Daily PowerPoints

Synthesising

phase

Week 3

Stage Two

Recycling & nature

conservation

Environment model

continues

Children identified environmental issues &

positive practices

Teacher & teacher aide shared texts about

recycling & conservation

Teacher, teacher aide & children observed their

water usage and rubbish disposal practices

Children made & implemented further

practices about water usage, pollution &

recycling

Children made drawings to remind

shopkeepers to recycle

Children influenced parental shopping

practices regarding purchase of recyclable

goods & packaging


* Curriculum plan

* Daily PowerPoints

* Parent conversations

Synthesising

phase

Week 4

Solutions proposed

for environmental

issues

Environment model

continues

Children demonstrated understanding of the

impact that unclean water can have on animals

Children engaged in the ‘Earth Game’ on the

Interactive White Board & were observed saying

that animals could live there when the pollution

was removed

Children designed ‘water cleaning’ devices &

incorporated these into play in the sandpit

Children role-played pro-environmental

behaviours


* Curriculum plan

* Daily PowerPoints


Introductory Phase (first two weeks)

The introductory phase of the children’s environment project took two weeks. Its

focus was to identify the children’s current interests and develop questions around

these. This is a standard process when implementing the Project Approach. The

introductory phase is usually characterised by activities that include gathering

observations about children, making lists of children’s current interests and

questions, and discussing what is already known and what children might want to

investigate about a particular topic (Chard, 2011; Katz & Chard, 2000; Sloane,

2004). The introductory phase of this children’s environment project was

characterised by four key events. These were: gathering ideas about improving the

kindergarten playground; one child’s rainforest collage which became the catalyst

for the collaborative children’s environment project; the class nature hunt; and, the

initial stages of building the class environment model. Each of these events is now

explained in detail.

Playground plans (week one). A regular monthly kindergarten management

committee meeting was held during the introductory phase of the project. This

committee is comprised of parents and staff. During these monthly meetings, regular

discussions are held about fund-raising or the allocation of available funds for

particular projects or purchases for the kindergarten. At this particular meeting, the

teaching staff (teachers A and B and the teacher aide) raised the possibility of

allocating funds to enhance the kindergarten playground, a suggestion which was

supported by the committee. To coincide with this support to direct funding into the

outdoor play space, I asked all kindergarten children and families what they would

like to see changed or added to the playground (Appendix I, letter to parents, 2010


and August newsletter, 2010). A communal notice-board was provided for families

and children to submit their ideas.

In the same period during a group session, a time when all children gather in one

place with teachers, the children were also encouraged to suggest ideas of what they

would like to see in the playground. This occurred for both classes (blue and red

groups). Some children in blue group chose to represent their ideas through their

regular art activities during the two week introductory project phase. Children’s

representations showed grass, water, plants growing, trees, birds, nests and stepping

stones. Where children represented constructed features these occurred alongside

natural phenomena for example, bridges were built over water, tree-houses were

built within the trees, and plant-pots were provided for strawberries along the patio.

Bridges were the most common human-made feature. One picture showed a slide

going into water and all pictures contained multiple natural elements such as water,

stones, trees and plants.

Figure 14. Photos of children’s artwork about improving the kindergarten

playground

Based on an analysis of the children’s artwork in conjunction with conversations

with children, my interpretation was that the children showed a preference for

natural phenomena. As Wright (2010) states “children’s drawings provide a


naturalistic way to witness children’s creative meaning-making, because the source

of the content emerges from the child’s own thoughts, feelings and imagination”

(p.26). The teacher aide agreed with my view that the children were displaying a

preference for natural elements in their ideas for the revamped playground. She

commented:

The children made a lot of references to mushrooms, quiet spaces in the yard,

rockeries and coves that we could make around the rocks we already have.

They talked about long, green, wavy grass for hiding and they asked for

sticks so they could make bridges in their pictures (conversation with teacher

aide, 18/8/2010).

Analysis of the artwork also revealed an absence of ‘play-gym style’ structures

(often vibrantly coloured, fixed metal structures with swings, slides & platforms)

which I again interpreted to be a reflection of the children’s preferences not to have

these structures in their playground. One child wanted a sign in his playground

depiction that said “no crying allowed”. This prompted me to pay attention to the

facial expressions represented in the artworks to find if there were smiling faces or

downturned mouths. All other children’s pictures, containing representations of

people, had smiling faces. I considered that the smiling faces, combined with

children’s representations of predominantly natural features, indicated the children’s

positive feelings associated with natural environments.

Parent contributions also featured predominantly natural phenomena. These

included: fairy gardens; a tee-pee with bean vines; a sensory garden; meandering

pathways; water features; food plants; plants to touch, smell and feel; a native bee-

hive; possum boxes; bird-feeders; stumps for sitting on; and wind-chimes. Magazine

clippings were also added to the ideas board by some parents. Many of these


featured play-spaces designed around and within trees. This suggested that parents,

too, preferred to see natural phenomena strongly featured in the kindergarten’s

playground, as well as materials, structures and plantings that would encourage

wildlife onto the site.

The rainforest collage (week one). While some children were making drawings

and collages of what they would like in the playground, other children drew and

collaged features not directly related to the kindergarten playground. Of particular

note was a rainforest collage made by Trina (16/8/2010), when I asked Trina about

her work she asked me to scribe the text I am thinking about the rainforest on her

collage. She then uttered the following words that I scribed after she had completed

her artwork.

Figure 15. Photo and text of child’s rainforest collage

Later that day, as is customary practice in the kindergarten, the children gathered

for another group time for sharing ideas, interests and thoughts. Trina’s rainforest

collage and text were among the suite of ideas and artifacts shared amongst the

children. Via her collage, Trina communicated what she knew about the rainforest,

camping, bush safety, rubbish and its impact on rainforest animals. The rainforest

Trina I did 2 frogs, they’re

bouncing. The leaves are

falling. The butterflies are

flying. There are 3 stars

falling from the sky. The

vines are swinging. We

should camp in a tent in the

rainforest. You have to be

careful of snakes. Look out

for spiders. No rubbish-

Don’t put rubbish in the

rainforest because all the

animals will die. (Trina, 16/8/2010)


collage created a ripple effect of interest for the children, myself and the teacher aide

and, hence, became the starting point for the children’s environment project. For

example, other children then shared their own experiences of the natural

environment on camping trips and bushwalking. Littledyke and McCrea (2009) state

that “planning for children’s learning through education for sustainability should

emerge and evolve from their world views and their everyday questions” (p.46).

Harris Helm and Katz (2011) also state that it is not uncommon for children to

initiate their own projects and that often the topic emerges from an event that

provokes their curiosity (Harris Helm & Katz, 2011). These authors also claim that

“one characteristic of a project that comes from a catalytic event is that it often

moves into the investigation phase relatively quickly because the young investigators

all have a common experience” (p. 15). This was the case for this study. The

teacher aide and I pursued this interest by introducing books that featured rainforests

and natural environments as a means of extending the children’s interest in the

rainforest.

The nature hunt (week one). One of the books I selected was The Nature Hunt

(Metzger, 2007) that I read to the children the following day. The book has simple,

repetitive text depicting children exploring the natural environment. The reading

stimulated discussion amongst the children who demonstrated that they understood

both the overt and subtle environmental messages contained in the text. For

example, children noted that the book characters did not touch the various natural

elements that they saw …you can’t take creatures away from where they live cos

they will die…, …you can only look, you don’t pick things…you can only pick them

up if they have already fallen off… (Teacher notes, 18/8/2010). Children’s

understandings about, and interest in, flora and fauna were evident during the


reading of the text as illustrated by their participation in their own nature hunt

through the playground.

Analysis of the data sources, including teacher observations, conversation

transcripts and children’s artifacts, showed that the children understood about the

interdependence of flora and fauna. They expressed that it was not acceptable to

collect living animals such as insects and take them out of their natural environment.

However, the children were observed collecting some non-living items including

rocks, leaves and flowers that were found on the ground, that is, they had not been

picked. The children also decided that it was acceptable to use these for art, in their

play, and to be looked at closely using magnifying glasses. The teacher aide shared

the following with me after the children’s participation in the nature hunt. She

commented: I spoke with some of the children and encouraged them to compare the

features of the different leaves. They noticed that the veins on some leaves were

different to other leaves (18/8/2010).

At this early stage of the project, the children were co-constructing learning about

the natural world, for example they were already formulating pro-environment

‘rules’ such as not removing animals from their environments, and they were

learning to act carefully with living plants by not picking living parts off. The

teacher aide and I concurred that this response had arisen directly as a result of

sharing the book The Nature Hunt with the children.

Beginning the class environment model (week two). In week two of this

introductory stage of the children’s environment project, children and teachers built

on the initial interest in the rainforest topic by collaboratively compiling an extended

list of interests. This activity was prompted by me when I asked the children “what

would you like to learn about?” Such negotiation is customary during the


introductory Project Approach phase (Harris Helm & Katz, 2011). Negotiated

curriculum is defined as an approach that involves children working collaboratively

with teachers to investigate a topic of interest. Projects provide one way to negotiate

curriculum with children and to engage them in actively co-constructing learning

(Early Years Curriculum Guidelines, Queensland Studies Authority, Queensland

Government, 2006). The following list was suggested by the children: jungles,

forests, waterfalls, rainforests, dinosaurs, water, dinghies and beaches (Class

discussion, 23/8/2010). Together, each option for further exploration was discussed

with the children ultimately suggesting the construction of a model … ‘cos then we

can see what a waterfall and a rainforest is like… because we don’t have any at

kindy… (Class discussion, 23/8/2010).

Following this collaborative class discussion, the children began constructing their

environment model. They started this work first, by making a ‘waterfall’, using

boxes of different shapes and sizes and placing them in a cascading formation. They

looked at waterfall pictures online in Google Images and on old calendar pictures to

help them with their design. The following picture is a PowerPoint slide (taken

August 23, 2010) from that day’s PowerPoint. As explained earlier, daily

PowerPoints are shared with parents, children and staff at the end of each day. The

slide shows children’s ideas that were shared with the class during that day’s group

discussions.


We used the We used the We used the We used the ‘‘‘‘waterfallwaterfallwaterfallwaterfall’’’’

picture to help us work picture to help us work picture to help us work picture to help us work

out the shape that our out the shape that our out the shape that our out the shape that our

waterfall needed to be. waterfall needed to be. waterfall needed to be. waterfall needed to be.

This This This This ‘‘‘‘cascadingcascadingcascadingcascading’’’’

formation was made formation was made formation was made formation was made

using boxes. using boxes. using boxes. using boxes.

““““We made it this shape We made it this shape We made it this shape We made it this shape

because it has to be a because it has to be a because it has to be a because it has to be a

waterfall. Water goes waterfall. Water goes waterfall. Water goes waterfall. Water goes

down and then ducks down and then ducks down and then ducks down and then ducks

swim in the pondswim in the pondswim in the pondswim in the pond”””” BellaBellaBellaBella

““““It needs to be that It needs to be that It needs to be that It needs to be that

shape because it has shape because it has shape because it has shape because it has

rocks and the water has rocks and the water has rocks and the water has rocks and the water has

to come downto come downto come downto come down”””” ArcherArcherArcherArcher

Figure 16. Photograph of the initial stage of construction of the ‘environment

model’ and accompanying text with children’s real names covered.

Teacher reflection (at the end of the introductory phase). The children’s

environment model began in the introductory phase. Over time, children used the

environment model for play and to express their understandings around issues such

as threats to wildlife and animal characteristics. Harris Helm and Katz (2011)

describe project work as often resulting in children constructing 3 dimensional

models and creating play environments. This new type of activity was often rich

with opportunities for children to solve problems. In this case such problems

included where particular animals could live and be camouflaged within the

children’s environment model; what animals belonged in that habitat and those that

posed a threat. Further detail about the children’s ongoing involvement with the

environment model is outlined in the following phases.

As recorded in my fieldnotes and the regular documentation of children’s

program participation discussed earlier in this chapter, the children’s environment

project began organically with spontaneous interest stimulated from one child’s


rainforest collage. This reaffirmed for me that interest in the natural environment is

topical and meaningful for young children. Reading the text The Nature Hunt,

although selected by me, helped to reinforce the children’s interest. It provided them

with the idea that they could engage in a nature hunt of their own. Reading this book

revealed that the children were able to ‘read between the lines’ and pick up on subtle

messages. Children demonstrated pro-environmental understandings about flora and

fauna and when given the opportunity, they chose to use magnifying glasses to

observe flora and fauna rather than pick leaves or collect insects.

I can surmise from these initial experiences that children already have

established ideas about caring for the environment or they were transferring

learning from our shared book experience, or possibly responding to a

combination of both. My role during this phase was really one of facilitator

(Fieldnotes, weeks 1 & 2).

In week two I decided to continue to focus on texts with environmental messages,

in particular the Jeannie Baker’s (1988 & 2002) book series. I chose these because

the illustrations depict natural environments that are eventually replaced by human

development. Not only did children display pro-environmental attitudes they also

displayed empathy with the animals represented in the books whose environments

were being lost, even though the words in the book did not point this out. This is

evidenced by the following comments made by children including: it’s mean to the

animals to cut down their trees… (Elise, 24/8/2010) and animal homes and people

homes should be together… (Mark, 24/8/2010) Mark’s comment is particularly

significant as he proposed a solution to an environmental sustainability issue when

he suggested that humans and animals should co-exist.


Children demonstrated a natural orientation towards conservation and sense

of connectedness to the flora and fauna represented in the books. I shared

these thoughts with the teacher aide who agreed (conversation, 24/8/2010).

This strengthened my beliefs that learning about environmental sustainability

is both topical and child-appropriate (Fieldnotes, weeks 1 & 2).

Synthesising phase (three weeks)

According to Chard (2011), the synthesising phase of the Project Approach is

characterised by in-depth exploration of the interest area through a variety of open-

ended methods such as researching in books or inviting experts on a topic to visit

and share information with children. Activities within the synthesising phase of the

children’s environment project involved learning and actions around recycling and

nature conservation, and participating in a rainforest puppet show.

Recycling and nature conservation (weeks three and four). The children devised

their own ‘rules’ and practices around recycling and conservation. These were

additional to centre-wide practices already in place, such as the use of sensor taps

and rainwater tank aimed at reducing town water consumption. During this period of

the project I shared more picture books with the children from the series written by

Jen Green (2006) including: Why Should I Recycle? Why Should I Protect Nature?

Why Should I Save Energy? Why Should I Save Water? I also read Michael Recycle

by Ellie Bethel (2008). As the titles imply, these texts have pro-environmental

themes and have characters who model responsible environmental behaviours. The

children at the kindergarten were able to identify environmental issues (such as water

wastage, and water and air pollution), and were able to relate the stories to practices

already established at the kindergarten plus suggest additional sustainable practices.

Several examples are now provided.


For example, the children expressed concern about polluted water and the impact

this could have on animals. Children were enacting their ideas about how this

problem could be solved when they were observed playing in the sandpit devising

ways to clean sand from the pipes. When I asked the children about their activity

they made the comparison to pipes that had pollution draining out and into a pond

seen in the picture book Lester and Clyde (Reece, 1995). The children made direct

reference to this picture book which had been read to them. Luke commented: we

can see the baby animals… we have to clean the water... if there’s rubbish in the

water the baby animals will die… (Luke, 30/8/2010). What these children were

doing was role-playing pro-active environmental behaviours by pretending to clean

the waterways. They showed understandings about what was natural to a waterway

and what did not belong. Their dialogue demonstrated their understandings of the

consequences of polluted water for animals. Role play, on this theme of cleaning

water, was repeated frequently for a number of weeks after this first occasion.

Another example was when children were observed playing a game on the

electronic whiteboard called Earth Day (Starfall Education, 2002-2012). This

educational game was found on Starfall, an educational website for young children

(http://www.starfall.com/). The game shows a polluted natural environment

including a pond, trees and grassed areas. Children were required to ‘click and drag’

the polluting items and place them in the correct recycling bins: paper, plastic or

glass. While the children were playing this game, they noticed that as they cleared

more pollution away the animals began to reappear in the pond, stream and trees.

They problem-solved that:


They (animals) can come out now because the rubbish is gone… (David,

31/8/2010), animals can live here now because the rubbish has been cleaned

up… (David, 31/8/2010),

…it’s (the game) about picking up the rubbish so the animals won’t die…

(Mark, 31/8/2010),

…they’re special (the bins) because you can make new stuff out of them

(Mark, 31/8/2010).

This showed that the children were able to make the connection between pollution

and the presence of animals in the pond. The children also deduced that the animals

were more able to live in an unpolluted environment and that if animals ingested

pollution it could have detrimental effects. This is reflected in the following images.

These depict the children ‘cleaning the water’ (sand-pit play) and a PowerPoint

showing children’s thoughts when they played the ‘Earth Game’.

“We had to sort the

rubbish that could be re-cycled into

the correctre-cycling

bin”

“You need to put it the bin or animals might eat it.

If animals eat it they are

going to die”

Figure 17. Photograph of children designing ‘water cleaning devices’ in the sandpit

Figure 18. Slide from daily PowerPoint – Earth Day (Starfall Education, 2002-

2012) from the Starfall website (http://www.starfall.com/) and accompanying

children’s comments


A further example was when children identified solutions to environmental issues,

particularly when they revisited picture books that had been placed in the book

corner, a section of the classroom set up with cushions and a book shelf for children

to directly access books. Several children were observed browsing through various

books related to their current environmental interest. I overheard and recorded

comments made by several children as they revisited the book Michael Recycle

(Bethel, 2008). These included:

…see… you roll up paper so it doesn’t get wasted…, …once upon a time

people threw rubbish on the ground… and then along comes a super guy to

teach us not to throw rubbish everywhere… When we learn it he goes

somewhere else and says “no more throwing rubbish on the world”… (Beth,

31/8/2010),

…she’s sad because they are wasting water... they should save the water ‘cos

we’ll run out and the animals will be thirsty... (Trina, 31/8/2010).

Whilst looking at the text Why Should We Recycle (Green, 2006) one child took

on the role of one of the book characters using her voice to imitate the character’s

voice, and using facial gestures for emphasis, she said:

Stop! Stop! We don’t put rubbish around the house… put it here (points to

re-cycling bin)... wash it up and use it again... it will be a little bit new... we

can drink from it… we can play with it… it can go to the ‘newer shop’ and

they will make it new again… (Mary, 31/8/2010).

Interpretation and analysis of the data revealed that these children were able to

propose and implement solutions to environmental issues such as recycling and

water conservation. Although group times centred explicitly on environmentally-

focused picture books, many children were observed applying their learning to other


situations and at other times. For example, children suggested further recycling

measures be implemented at kindergarten meal times. The kindergarten observed a

‘litter-less lunch’ policy; however, the children decided to recycle the commonly-

used, individually-portioned yoghurt containers sent from home by introducing a

specific yoghurt container recycling bin. The children also suggested that these

containers be washed and re-used for painting and craft activities. The children

encouraged each other to adhere to these recycling ‘rules’ until the end of 2010. To

further illustrate their interest in practical recycling strategies within the

kindergarten, the teacher aide shared the following observation:

The children are very aware about their wrapping (glad-wrap) and the tops

of their yoghurt containers, they tell one another ‘quick, quick… get it before

an animal picks it up…’ They (the children) seem to be transferring their

learning into their practices without any intervention by us… (conversation

with the teacher aide, 6/9/2010).

Arising from their initial interest in the waterfall, recycling and water

conservation continued to be key interests for the children in this second phase of

their environment project. Additional water conservation measures to those already

in place in the kindergarten were suggested and implemented by the children. For

example, during group time several children suggested that … you need to have a

plan in your head about what the water will be used for… you can’t just fill up the

bucket and tip it out… you need a good reason… (31/8/2010). The following is an

excerpt taken my from weekly curriculum planning (1/9/2010):

Today the children came up with the idea to fill one small trough with water

and then use small containers to carry water to the sandpit.


This was discussed straight after our morning song (9.15 am) as a follow up

from yesterday’s discussion and book about saving water.

The children also decided they needed ‘good’ reasons to use water such as

‘for the animals (Trina) and ‘to fill up rivers’ (Luke) rather than ‘just tipping

it out’ (David)

During this discussion the children suggested that only small containers should be

used for water play and that only the tap connected to the rainwater tank should be

used for water play. The children also identified that completely filling up a

drinking cup was wasteful when only a small drink was wanted. …‘cos you should

only fill it up with what you need.. and …if you have leftover water in your cup you

should pour it on the plants or the grass… not just down the drain… (1/9/2010).

The teacher aide reported similar experiences of children’s continuing interest in

water conservation. For example, she reported that children were ‘chastising’ each

other if they saw water being wasted (conversation with the teacher aide, 1/9/2010).

The following photo shows a child using a cup of water from the rainwater tank.

The cup indicates the appropriate size of container that children agreed should be

used for water play.

Figure 19. Photograph of a child using a small cup in the sandpit as water

conservation measure


The rainforest puppet show (week five, 14/9/2010). Based on the children’s

interest in environmental issues and their learning as a result of making the

environment model, the teachers organised for a rainforest puppet show to visit the

kindergarten. This show, by Evergreen Theatre, specialises in puppetry with

environmental themes for young children (Stewart, 1990). The show identifies

features of the rainforest environment including its special flora and fauna, discusses

human impacts on rainforest habitats and presents ways that children can act to

preserve rainforests. Both the teacher aide and I were impressed with how many of

the puppeteer’s questions related to wildlife protection, habitat destruction and

pollution the children were able to answer (conversation with the teacher aide

following the puppet show, September 14, 2010). This illustrated for us that these

children had developed quite deep understandings about issues affecting native

rainforest wildlife. The following photograph is an example of the Australian

rainforest animal puppets featured in the rainforest puppet show.

Figure 20. Photograph of black satin bower bird puppet and its bower containing

blue materials.

After the puppet show, the children represented new ideas in their play. For

example, one child made a ‘rubbish crane’ designed to remove pollution from trees

and the air, indicating her understanding that pollution cannot always be ‘seen’. This


child used her rubbish crane in subsequent play in and around the environment

model. Children also frequently made references to specific animals learned about

through the puppet show, their needs and the potential threats posed by humankind.

Harris Helm and Katz (2011) report that young children often process and extend

their learning through play. This was the case in this study.

Figure 21. Photograph of child’s design of a rubbish crane

The following drawings were collected the day after the rainforest puppet show. I

was the scribe, writing down the children’s ideas if they wanted me to. The

children’s words included references to environmental sustainability issues such as:

the need to dispose of rubbish properly, you don’t leave rubbish on the floor or the

animals might die… (Adam, drawing, 15/9/2010); that people should not build in the

rainforest, people shouldn’t build there because animals have houses there...

(William, drawing, 15/9/2010); rubbish can harm wildlife, the paddymelon (small

wallaby) had a cut on its foot because the campers had left broken glass… you

shouldn’t leave glass in the rainforest… (Beth, drawing, 15/9/2010); that trees

should not be cut down, we don’t cut down trees because of the food for animals and

the nests… no birds will come if there are no trees… (David, drawing, 15/9/2010);

that pets should be restrained as they are a threat to wildlife; that native wildlife

should not be caged, I put my pet bird in a cage but we don’t put catbirds (a native


Australian rainforest bird) and scrub turkeys in cages… they live in trees and they

scratch in the dirt... we don’t scare them and we can’t let cats near birds... we can’t

let pets in the rainforest because they will kill the animals… and we take rubbish

home… (David, drawing, 15/9/2010) Generally speaking, the children demonstrated

a strong sense that wildlife had the right to live peacefully without threat from

humans.

Figure 22. Photographs of children’s drawings after the rainforest puppet show

The environment model (continued). During the synthesising phase of the

children’s environment project, they continued to engage with the environment

model. As mentioned above, children were observed incorporating new and

environmentally-related ideas into their play in and around this environment model.

Harris Helm and Katz (2011) describe young children as being involved in

increasingly advanced play throughout the course of a project, and that children

often become protective of living things when involved in projects about nature.

While immediately after the puppet show the children’s play revolved around the

animals they had learnt about, their play broadened to include animals not featured in

the show such as wombats and echidnas. For example, their play included creating

and camouflaging animals’ homes ..it’s a burrow where the echidna can live… he

can hide from people so they can’t kill his home or eat him.. I put trees around the


burrow to camouflage it... I want him to be safe from people… (William, 15/9/2010).

This is illustrated by Figure 23. Children’s creations included burrows, tunnels and

trees using rocks and craft materials. Their awareness that introduced species (such

as toads) posed a threat to wildlife was illustrated when I observed a child saying

no... no… they (toads) can kill the rainforest animals.. (William, 15/9/2010). This

occurred when another child approached holding a toy toad. Children made

particular references to physical animal characteristics such as those of wombats and

echidnas that live on the ground and in burrows because …they have short legs and

strong bodies so they are good at digging… but gliders can glide so they live in

trees... (Brady, 15/9/2010). I deduced from these observations that children had

learnt about concepts, such as human threats to wildlife and the need for animals to

camouflage, from their participation in the puppet show. Children also demonstrated

understanding that physical animal characteristics impacted on where a particular

animal might live, for example in a tree or in a burrow. Children then applied this

learning more broadly to situations not presented during the show. For example

wombats and echidnas were featured in children’s play but had not been a part of the

show.

“Its a burrow

where the echidna

can live. He can

hide from people

so they can’t kill his

home or eat him.

I put trees around

the burrow to

camouflage it. I

wanted him to be

safe from people”

Figure 23. Photograph of a burrow hidden by trees and child’s comments about the

burrow


Teacher reflection (end of the synthesising phase). My observations, during the

synthesising phase, identified that the children had developed many understandings

about environmental issues and topics including:

• human impacts on flora and fauna;

• pollution (seen and unseen);

• food chains and ecological systems;

• appropriate practices for dealing with rubbish;

• that native wildlife should not be caged;

• that domestic animals need to be restrained, and;

• pollution and polluted environments are harmful to wildlife and

humans.

Analysis of the data also showed that the children were able to make decisions

about how to conserve and protect the natural environment and to act positively for

the environment within their local context including the children’s immediate

environments, of the kindergarten and their homes. They did this, for example, by

introducing further recycling and water conservation measures. Mark, for example,

introduced a new ‘rule’ for recycling by suggesting that yoghurt containers be

washed and used as paint pots. Later, this same child designed and drew his own

recycling signs which he (and his parents) distributed to local shops to remind

shopkeepers that they needed to recycle. New water conservation measures were

also introduced for sand-play as a direct result of a class discussion about water use.

In general terms, too, the children displayed a heightened awareness of the

recognition that their own food scraps and spillages could negatively impact on

wildlife. They took added responsibility for cleaning up after themselves to ensure

that wildlife would not get sick from eating ‘people food’. In a conversation


between the teacher aide and me, the aide indicated that the children really seem to

know that people food can be harmful to wildlife (15/9/2010). Interestingly, the

children were the ones who continued to ensure that their decisions about

environmental responsibility formed part of our normal daily routine. They took

responsibility, for example, for reminding each other about recycling, conserving

water and rubbish management. Thus, these environmental learning experiences

appeared to empower the children as they devised and monitored their own rules for

protecting the environment rather than simply following those imposed by adults.

The children’s learning also influenced their families as demonstrated by parents’

comments obtained during this study. A number of parents noted that they had

changed their shopping habits as a direct result of their children’s focus on

purchasing items with recycling symbols, or items that had reduced packaging. One

parent reported that her child said ‘it’s better for our environment’ (parent comment,

15/9/2010). Another example is illustrated in the following email forwarded to me

by a parent. She reported:

Mark was very excited to educate our family about recycling after discussing

it at kindy. For weeks he has been pointing out the recycling sign

particularly when we are grocery shopping (although he did get confused

with the give way sign!). The symbols are similar and we had to explain the

difference. When Mark is feeling creative we check the recycling bin to see if

there are boxes or containers we can ‘recycle’ into something interesting. It

is lovely to see him so excited about such an important project (email,

1/10/2010).

Children’s concern about waste and recycling also influenced craft experiences

such as box construction (a large container of boxes is kept in the classroom for


children to use for arts and crafts). Instead of taking box constructions home, the

children opted to keep photographs of their constructions so that the boxes they had

used could be recycled again.

Culminating Phase (final two weeks)

The culminating phase of the Project Approach is characterised by

communicating what has been discovered during the course of the project (Chard,

2011). Harris Helm and Katz (2011) describe opportunities for children to educate

others as arising during the culminating phase. This project culminated with two

major outcomes. First, the project’s collaboratively compiled poster documentation

told the story of children’s participation in the project (Appendix I) and, second, a

class book (Appendix J) was created to educate others about what the children had

learnt as a result of their participation in the project. The poster documentation of

the project was displayed in the classroom and the class book was distributed to

families. This collaborative documentation is now discussed.

Poster documentation. Teachers and children collaboratively documented their

learning journey during the children’s environment project. This was essentially a

narrative account of the key events that occurred. This was achieved by revisiting

PowerPoint slide-shows (everyday photographs taken by the teachers that are then

used in a daily slide-show viewed by staff, children and parents each afternoon),

reviewing art and craft products and items from children’s portfolios which

contained evidence of their learning and participation during the project, and

examples of discussions held at group times. The study’s poster documentation was

hung from lines across the kindergarten classroom. Harris Helm and Katz (2011)

describe this process as beneficial for children as it helps them develop a sense of the

learning process. As is customary at the kindergarten, children and teachers selected


photos and text to represent the project chronologically and to summarise what had

been learnt (Harris Helm & Katz, 2011).

The class book. Further to creating this class documentation which told the

‘story’ of the children’s environment project, the children also wanted to produce a

book …so we can teach other people… (Class discussion, 5/10/2010). Harris Helm

and Katz (2011) state that “another way that children can educate others is to create

books about their nature topic” (p. 65). This indicated the children’s prior learning

about, and recognition of, books as a means for learning. Again, suggestions about

the text for the book came from the children. I was the editor and grouped similar

ideas together and helped with sentence construction. Book illustrations were made

from children’s drawings and photographs suggested by the children. The class

book was then reproduced and copies distributed to families as the children wanted

to teach other people about ways to act for the environment. Full text and some

photos from the children’s book are found in Appendix K.

Creating the class book allowed the children to feel that their efforts and

knowledge about sustainability were valued by others including the teachers, teacher

aide and parents. Chawla and Flanders Cushing (2007) describe a sense of

‘collective competence’ resulting from such shared experiences when children come

together around a shared goal, in this case to share their knowledge and to educate

others about environmental matters. In this project the children worked

collaboratively and cooperatively, achieving consensus through negotiation and

discussion. This is an example of democracy at work in the classroom when

children were engaged in democratic processes and decision-making based on

knowledge they had co-constructed (Chawla & Flanders Cushing, 2007).


At the conclusion of the children’s environment project both the project

documentation (which summarised the project for the children) and the class book

(designed to educate others) remained in the classroom, available for use by the

children. The children continued to access and refer to these resources until the end

of their Pre-prep year; that is for several months after the project was completed,

until the end of kindergarten year.

The environment model (continued). All the while, the environment model

continued to be a popular play area within the kindergarten classroom, similar to the

book corner and the puzzle area which are standard room areas within the

kindergarten. The children regularly used animal models, the trees they had made,

and the rocks that they collected from the playground. The following picture shows

the environment model that children made with strings of beads and craft materials

threaded onto lengths of wool and twine to represent the rainforest canopy. This was

added in the latter stages of the project when the children were revisiting a book they

had used earlier in their learning at which time they realised that their environment

model did not have a rainforest canopy (Figure 24).


Figure 24. Photograph of the environment model with threaded canopy

Teacher reflection (end of the culminating phase). The culminating phase for this

project differed from previous kindergarten projects in that the children produced a

book aimed at educating others. In other words children saw themselves as

environmental educators:

The difference, to previous projects, was that children were not only active

participants in decision-making, they were also active participants in

enacting change within their kindergarten and home contexts – children

enacted change by co-constructing knowledge about environmentally

sustainable practices and communicating these to others by producing a

book (Fieldnotes, weeks 6 & 7).

I believe, however, that this outcome did not occur as a result of this project topic

alone; rather it was a result of the new kind of program that is now operating at the

kindergarten. Before this project began, children’s ideas were already central to the

curriculum and I believed that a culture of discussion and shared decision-making


was well established. The significant difference in curriculum delivery for this

children’s environment project was the influence of critical theory and education for

sustainability pedagogy. For example, I made a more conscious decision to scaffold

and facilitate learning in ways that encouraged children to not only co-construct

knowledge but also to consider ways they could act upon this knowledge. The kinds

of open-ended questioning I used assisted this process. For example, rather than just

asking the children questions that would stimulate co-construction of knowledge, I

was asking questions that supported and encouraged children to consider possible

actions they could take based on the knowledge that had been co-constructed. For

example, I asked questions like “what can we do to help?” and “I wonder if we can

help change this?” This change enabled the children to take charge, problem-solve

and make and effect environmental decisions more than in the past.

This shift in curriculum delivery, from facilitating co-construction of

knowledge to enacting change based on this co-constructed knowledge,

seemed to be a natural progression and enhancement of the kindergarten’s

use of the Project Approach. Although I feel that the children had a

favourable pre-disposition towards the environment to begin with, they drove

the learning throughout the project (Fieldnotes, weeks 6 & 7).

As a result of changes to my pedagogy, the children were able to better negotiate,

debate and to discuss the various issues and topics as they arose. The teacher aide

and I became better facilitators who scaffolded learning by making more use of

open-ended questioning, encouraging critical thinking, and supporting children’s

ideas for creating change.


Continuing Influence of the Children’s Environment Project

Even when the examination of the children’s environment project via this action

research case study was officially over, the learning that occurred continued to

influence the educational program of the kindergarten and the ongoing practices and

actions of staff and children. This occurred in three ways. First, the children made

continuing, frequent references to learning and actions developed during the course

of the project. Second, the project influenced the learning of the other class (red

group) and third, the project impacted on the children’s end of year concert, a public

production which summarised their learning throughout the whole kindergarten year.

Children’s ongoing references to project learning. After the formal conclusion of

the 7 week project, the children continued to demonstrate and actively discuss

sustainable practices. While Harris Helm and Katz (2011) posit that children’s

interests in projects will eventually wane, the children in this study continued to

exhibit strong interest in the topic and took actions for sustainable practices beyond

the life of the project. For example, children continued to recycle yoghurt

containers, save water, ensure that ‘people food’ was not left where it could be

accessed by native fauna, provided appropriate food scraps for the bird-feeder, and

limited paper wastage in the classroom. They continued to look at the class book

that they had produced and made comments such as‘…that’s when we decided to

recycle the yoghurt containers for painting…’ (Mark). However, not only did the

‘children’s environment project’ influence the teacher researcher’s class, it also

impacted on the class that used the same classroom on different days. This is

discussed next.

The project’s influence on the red group. The second class (red group) attended

the kindergarten on Thursdays, Fridays and alternating Wednesdays, with a different


teacher. This class used the same classroom and playground. At the time of the

children’s environment project in 2010, the red group displayed interest in the

project in a number of ways. For example, the red group teacher shared with me that

her class had initially become interested when they noticed ‘cards’ in the classroom

which referred to photographs taken by the blue group during their ‘nature hunt’ in

the introductory phase. The red group teacher explained how the ‘cards’ were then

used by the blue group to explore the kindergarten environment. This stimulated

interest amongst the red group who also began discussing environmental issues such

as the impact of rubbish on natural areas. At this time, in the reserve that borders the

kindergarten, there were plovers (ground nesting birds) with their new chicks. The

children in this class became concerned about the birds’ safety, which led to further

discussion about other local native wildlife and ways the children could act to protect

them. Many of these children shared stories based on their own experiences,

including possum boxes that were used at some homes. Following this discussion, a

possum box was built and installed by a parent of the red group in a tree at the

kindergarten at the request of the red group children.

Children’s end of year production. A further example of the continuing influence

of the children’s environment project was when the children from both groups

created a shared backdrop for the end of year ‘celebration of learning’. This featured

trees, rainforest collages, a possum box, native animal puppets, draping vines and

leaves, flowers and insects. The way the backdrop was created was an ongoing

‘ping-pong’ of activity, with one group working on the backdrop on their days at

kindergarten then the second group adding to and building on the backdrop with

their own ideas on their days. This shared construction went on for several weeks

until the backdrop was completed, even though the children actually never met face


to face until the end of the year. A key feature of the end of year celebration was

explaining the children’s thinking around their set design. For example, I informed

all the parents that the children wanted a possum box, a painted shoe-box with a

possum hand-puppet inside, as part of their backdrop because they had learnt about

animals and people living together. The key message shared with families was the

children’s learning about, and action taken for, the environment.

Step 6: Meta Analysis of the Study and Identification of Themes

In this section I identify and discuss three key themes drawn from the data

analysis; these were:

1. Young children can think critically about environmental sustainability

issues;

2. Young children are able to create change in their local contexts;

3. Young children are able to take on the role of educators.

Young children can think critically about environmental sustainability issues.

Throughout the study the teacher aide and I perceived that the children were able to

demonstrate pro-environmental dispositions. This was evident from the earliest

stage of the study when children discussed environmentally sensitive ways to treat

flora and fauna during their nature hunt. Children also expressed disapproval of

habitat destruction when read books by Jeannie Baker. They demonstrated their

ideas and proposed solutions to environmental sustainability issues through their

words, play, artwork and actions. Examples included when children’s artwork about

changes to the playground showed their preferences for natural elements, such as

stepping stones and birds’ nests, rather than manufactured playground equipment;

and, their words and drawings after the rainforest puppet show demonstrated their

ideas about ways to look after rainforests and rainforest animals.


Young children also demonstrated their ability to think critically and to problem-

solve about environmental sustainability issues. This was illustrated by examples

such as when children devised ‘water cleaning’ devices in their sandpit play and

introduced water conservation measures. This resulted from the children’s

participation in activities such as learning about the water cycle while they

constructed their waterfall model and listening to the reading of books such as Why

Should I Save Water? (Green, 2006) Another example was the construction of a

rubbish crane designed by a child for the purpose of removing unseen pollution from

trees and the air.

Young children are able to create change in their local contexts. During the

course of the study the children created change in their local community. For

example, as a response to the children’s interests in native animals and their

suggestion that animal houses and people houses should be together, a possum box

was placed in a tree in the playground. Some families reported that they had

changed their shopping habits, at their children’s instigations, to more sustainable

practices such as using environmentally-friendly shopping bags and purchasing

items with little packaging or packaging displaying recycling symbols. Change was

created by children within the kindergarten as well, for example they introduced

further water conservation and recycling practices. These are examples of

intergenerational learning (Gambino, Davis & Rowntree, 2009); learning that is

shared and experienced by different generations such as parents and children. The

following is also an example of intergenerational learning.

Young children are able to take on the role of educators. Another significant

finding of the study was that young children are able to take on the role of educators,

as demonstrated by the production of the class book. The children demonstrated


empowerment when they took on a role that is usually taken on by adults. They

were able to see themselves as having the resources and independence to direct their

own activities (MacNaughton & Williams, 2009). The reason children gave for

making the book was, explicitly, to teach our parents about what we can do

(Teacher reflection, week 6). The children felt they had important knowledge and

actions to share with others.

Implications for teacher practice

The identification of these key themes arising from the action research case study

caused me to reflect on the original conceptual framework of the study, outlined

initially in Chapter 2, Figure 5. In this framework, early childhood education and

education for sustainability were represented separately but connected through the

central circle which identified the synthesis of co-constructivist and transformative

teaching approaches through an action research approach to curriculum planning.

This framework helped me to better understand and implement education for

sustainability within the kindergarten.

Figure 5. Conceptual framework: young children as change agents for sustainability


However, as a result of my participation in, and reflections on, the action research

project as it unfolded I developed a new curriculum planning model which others

may decide to use for addressing education for sustainability in a meaningful and

participatory way. While the original conceptual framework provided the study’s

theoretical underpinnings, the new model provides a practical approach to

curriculum which can be utilised by classroom teachers. This curriculum model,

which I have called a transformative Project Approach, follows.

Figure 25: New model – ‘A Transformative Project Approach’ (Stuhmcke, 2012).

Figure 25 represents my conceptualisation of this ‘Transformative Project

Approach’. What it illustrates is the conjunction of co-constructivist and

transformative teaching and learning approaches. Unlike in the conceptual

framework, both co-constructive and transformative practices are represented as of

equal significance and inter-dependent, synthesised through a teacher-facilitator role

Co- constructivist learning & teaching *Projects *Documentation *Co-constructed knowledge

Transformative learning & teaching *Enacting change

*Thinking critically

*Being empowered

and acting with agency

Teacher as facilitator

Transformative Project

Approach

Young Children as Change Agents for

Sustainability


in teaching and learning. The theoretical contributions of co-constructivism and

transformative teaching and learning are ‘glued together’ by the pedagogical

practices of the teacher-facilitator. In this new model the ‘broken’ line indicates the

synthesis of the two learning and teaching approaches. It is argued, therefore, that to

achieve a transformative Project Approach all three elements must be present. This

model is supported by Jenkins (2009) who also believes that education for

sustainability needs to draw on constructivist theory, be facilitated through a

transformative model of education, and should employ teacher-facilitator roles in

learning. In this study, a transformative Project Approach was created and employed

as it facilitated early childhood education for sustainability by synthesising co-

constructivist approaches common to early childhood education, with transformative

approaches common to education for sustainability. Thus, the outcome was young

children who led their own learning by co-constructing environmental knowledge,

enacting change based on these co-constructed experiences and acted as stewards of

the Earth. This was supported by the teacher who facilitated a democratic classroom

approach and who acted as the children’s ‘helper’, resource provider and questioner.

This was achieved when children asked questions and by teacher questioning that

encouraged children to co-construct knowledge about environmental and

sustainability issues, as well as using questioning that encouraged children to

consider ways to take action and to create change.

To provide more detail for this model, the co-constructivist learning and teaching

section of the model contains the important components of projects, documentation

and co-constructed knowledge. As stated in Chapter 2, these components contribute

to learning in the environment and learning about the environment (Davis, 2010).

The transformative learning and teaching section of the model contains the


components of enacting change, critical thinking and empowerment and agency.

These attributes contribute to learning for the environment and taking action (Davis,

2010). The teacher-facilitator role includes open-ended questioning (including

critical questioning), democracy and ‘helper’ roles (for example, providing

appropriate resources) to support children’s thinking and actions. The model is

circular to demonstrate wholism and strength. The intersecting arrows indicate the

interdependency of each component. It is claimed here that a fully transformative

Project Approach would not be possible if any of these key elements are missing. To

summarise, the model presented here has evolved as a result of my participation in

the study and analysis of the study’s data. It is a theoretical and practical outcome

that derived from my investigations of RQ1 and RQ2. Following, I now directly

address these 2 questions. The third research question is addressed in the final

chapter.

Addressing Two Research Questions

1. How might a Project Approach facilitate learning for sustainability? In this

study the Project Approach facilitated education for sustainability by encouraging

children to participate in the co-construction of knowledge about environmental

topics and supported them as action-takers for the environment. The use of the

Project Approach to connect children with nature is supported by Harris Helm and

Katz (2011), who advocate nature projects; though, in this study the children not

only participated in project work about nature, they also enacted positive

environmental change. Therefore, this study is an example of the Project Approach

at a level which exceeds co-construction of knowledge. Such extending of the

Project Approach is supported by Harris Helm and Katz (2011) who state that:


The activities and events in project work can make a unique contribution to connecting children with nature. As children do project work, they collect artifacts, study them closely, and represent what they learn by drawing, painting, constructing, writing, or even through play. Nature is highly stimulating and engaging, and invites study and deep thinking. In doing projects with nature, children form basic understanding of facts and terms… Just interacting with nature can provide challenges. As children focus their investigations on nature topics, they also learn that nature and a natural environment are interesting and valuable. They learn to be protective and supportive of the natural environment (p. 8 & 9).

During the course of this study there were many illustrations of ways in which the

children co-constructed knowledge. One example occurred during the nature hunt,

when children discussed ways to protect flora and fauna; another was during the

construction of the environment model when children learnt about camouflage and

threats to wildlife. Learning was facilitated by the teacher and teacher aide who

provided appropriate materials and resources and scaffolded learning through open-

ended questioning. Further, the children were involved in democratic group learning

such as building the environment model and creating the class book, and decided

what was to be included in the documentation of their environment project.

Additionally, the transformative Project Approach enabled the children to

demonstrate pro-environmental dispositions, express their learning and action taking

variously through their dialogue, play and artwork throughout the study. For

example, the children’s environment project was initially triggered by a child’s

collage and accompanying text …I am thinking about the rainforest… (Trina). This

artwork was then shared at grouptime and became the catalyst for the children’s

environment project by prompting discussion about what children wanted to learn.

In other words children’s play and artwork reflected their thoughts, ideas and

solutions to sustainability issues. This analysis is supported by Wright (2010) who

describes children as participating simultaneously inside and outside the creative

process. This means that children sometimes perceive themselves as subjects of


their work while, at other times, children are spectators of their work. This was

clearly the case in this study. The data also contained numerous examples of

children’s drawings involving sustainability topics; for example children’s depictions

of figures looking at native animals but not touching, frightening or removing them

from their natural environments.

As discussed in Chapter two, a fundamental principle of early childhood

education is that children learn through play (Wood, 2004; Robinson & Vaealiki,

2010). “Play supports problem-solving abilities and creates opportunities and

situations where children can experiment and be creative” (Sandberg & Arlemalm-

Hagser, 2011, p.45). Robinson and Vaealiki (2010), state, however, that it is less

common for early childhood teachers to encourage play that focuses on sustainability

issues. The findings in this study, about the use of the transformative Project

Approach, contained numerous examples of children’s play involving sustainability

topics. For example, children played in and around the environment model using toy

animals to act out issues such as removing toads, an introduced pest, from the

habitats of rainforest animals because toads pose a threat to native animals. This

example demonstrates that children’s understandings about environmental

sustainability are strengthened through both real and play-based contexts. Children

knew that ‘living’ toads pose a threat to ‘living’ animals and enacted this knowledge

through play. The children’s play was purposeful in that it provided them with

opportunities to develop understandings and explore concepts about environmental

sustainability. In other words, children’s play was situated within the co-constructed

learning and activities related to environmental sustainability (Wood, 2004).

In summary, the use of an extended Project Approach enabled children to co-

construct knowledge about environment and sustainability issues that were of


interest to them and to express their learning, thoughts and ideas through their play,

art experiences and shared discussions between each other and with their teachers.

2. How do young children learn to be social agents for change through education

for sustainability? In response to RQ 2, this study demonstrated that children can be

social agents for change when transformative learning and teaching roles are

employed. This was achieved when children co-constructed knowledge about

environmental sustainability through co-constructivist strategies, and were able to

change their behaviours, through transformative strategies; they then devised actions

and influenced others by producing educational materials. Evidenced throughout the

study were many examples of children thinking critically about environmental

sustainability issues, creating change within the kindergarten and within their

families by introducing environmentally-friendly practices in homes and the

community and taking on the role of educators. In other words, throughout this

study children demonstrated environmental stewardship and advocacy (Harris Helm

and Katz, 2011).

Transformative learning and teaching roles aim to create change from existing

practices, rules and understandings (MacNaughton, 2003). For example, children

were involved in creating positive change for environmental sustainability when they

created ‘rules’ for water (reduction in resource consumption being key to reducing

environmental impact). This had particular consequences in the traditional early

childhood education area of water play when, for example, water troughs are filled

with floating/sinking items and pouring equipment and when water is used in the

sandpit for ‘filling’ and ‘cooking’. In other words children learnt about the value of

water (co-constructed knowledge) and then applied their learning to their play and

water usage practices (transformed behaviours). Children introduced rules about


appropriate ways to use water for play including using water from the rainwater

tank; children used smaller sized containers for water for play than they had used

previously; and, finally, children appeared to have a plan for water use that focused

on preserving it.

In terms of demonstrating critical thinking and agency, children demonstrated

right from the beginning. In week two, for example, children suggested that human

homes and animal homes should co-exist, demonstrating that young children are

capable of thinking critically and problem solving rather than merely accepting the

‘status quo’ of native fauna being ignored within human settlements. Harris Helm

and Katz (2011) describe problem solving as a process that develops naturally when

the Project Approach is employed. These authors also describe problem solving as a

process that changes and evolves over the ‘life’ of a project. During the synthesising

phase, in weeks three to five of the study, for example, children devised and

implemented rules and practices around recycling and conservation. The study

revealed that the children had understandings about water quality, pollution and

threats to native wildlife and that their ideas were being incorporated into outdoor

play and around the environment model they had constructed. Children were

observed making references to conserving paper and responsible rubbish disposal as

they looked at relevant books.

Finally, during the culminating phase of the study, in weeks six and seven,

children documented and produced educational material designed to influence others

about ways to act for the environment based on the learning they had co-constructed;

that is the children demonstrated a desire to share their learning with others (Harris

Helm & Katz, 2011). Although the children demonstrated the ability to propose and

enact change throughout the entire study, it was at the end that they actively took on


this role. Culminating phases of prior projects usually involved a celebratory

activity where parents, staff and children shared the learning that had occurred.

However, the children’s environment project differed significantly because the

children specifically wanted to educate their parents. Hence, they produced an

educational resource to achieve this objective.

I attribute this difference to the embedding of the transformative pedagogical

approach incorporated into the more customary co-constructivist approaches used

within the kindergarten. In particular, the conscious inclusion of transformative

pedagogies such as encouraging critical thinking, empowerment and agency, greater

democracy and recognition of children’s capabilities as change agents were

significant. In this study children were given a ‘voice’ and their thoughts, ideas and

suggestions were ‘heard’.

This serves to illuminate power relations, including whose interests were being

served most within the study. As a researcher, I valued the perspectives that children

can bring to research and, therefore, designed the study to maximise ways in which

children’s ideas could be shared (Mackey & Vaealiki, 2011). For example,

children’s conversations were scribed to illustrate events within the study as

accurately as possible. Additionally, their pictures, models and play provided valued

artefacts and ways of ‘hearing’ them. This contributed to the study’s credibility as

thick description of children’s words and ideas were recorded rather than relying on

my interpretations alone. In summary, by strengthening inputs and the Project

Approach through transformative pedagogies, children were able to more fully

demonstrate that they were capable of being agents of change for sustainability.


Thinking of New Actions: The Study’s Implications

The final step in an action research cycle is to think of new actions arising from

the findings. Therefore, the implications of this study’s findings in relation to early

childhood education for sustainability are now considered. Two main implications

have been identified. First, that early childhood teachers consider the Project

Approach an effective method to assist young children to learn about environmental

issues; and second, current co-constructivist Project Approaches can be strengthened

with critical theoretical insights.

Regarding the first implication, this study has provided research evidence for the

use and effectiveness of the Project Approach as a means of assisting children to

learn about environmental and sustainability issues. Children in this study were

involved in decision-making and action-taking around sustainability issues in their

local contexts (at the kindergarten, local community and homes). The argument

made here is that education for sustainability in early childhood education should

begin in children’s local communities. During the study children explored issues

such as human impact on wildlife and were able to suggest ways to act to protect

wildlife. As Davis (2010) points out, children are exposed to “graphic images on

television of dying birds, drowning polar bears, choking smog and urban slums” (p.

29). This study provides evidence that contradicts those educators and

commentators who say that environmental and sustainability topics are too hard for

young children to grasp. For example, the Early Childhood Environmental

Education Programs: Guidelines for Excellence (North American Association for

Environmental Education, 2010) states that:

Young children do not have the coping skills to face the tragedies of environmental crises and problems. When faced with the loss of endangered species and environmental degradation, young children may respond with sadness, fear, and helplessness, which can lead to a defensive apathy (p. 4).


This study found that young children responded to environmental and

sustainability issues by enacting change themselves, by influencing and educating

others.

The second major implication though, is that the co-constructivist Project

Approach needs to be strengthened with transformative teaching and learning

strategies. Here the children firstly co-constructed knowledge about environmental

issues and were then able to act upon their knowledge in a variety of ways. For

example, during the culminating phase children demonstrated their agency when

they brought together their thoughts around various environmental sustainability

issues in order to produce a book designed to educate others.

Third, this study revealed that opportunities for critical thinking, being

empowered and taking action can move early childhood education beyond the realm

of the immediate. In other words, the use of a transformative Project Approach (see

Figure 25, earlier in this Chapter) within early childhood education for sustainability,

continued to influence children beyond their project and the study. The children’s

environment project continued to permeate the educational program beyond the

study’s time frame indicating that its influence was potentially far reaching. As the

study has concluded its continuing influence on participants, beyond kindergarten, is

unknown. Another factor to consider is that the child-participants from this study

have now moved on to various Prep education centres. Therefore, they may now be

involved in education programs involving different teaching approaches, and

education for sustainability may or may not be an embedded component of the

curriculum.

This study suggests that young children are able to take on the role of change

agents for sustainability. Children engaged as active participants in the research


process as they investigated local and meaningful environmental sustainability issues

and they co-constructed knowledge and then created change related to various

environmental sustainability issues that arose during the children’s environment

project. Such experiences support the integration of transformative teaching

elements in the kindergarten year.

Chapter Summary

This chapter has presented the study’s findings and discussed the key themes that

arose from data analysis. In doing so, two of the study’s three research questions

have been discussed. These have contributed to developing insights into children’s

participation in sustainability, an area which requires greater understanding and

theorizing (Elliott & Davis, 2009). Three themes consistently ran through the data,

while often overlapping.

In summary, what was found is that children are able to identify and analyse

environmental situations, can propose and enact solutions to environmental issues,

act in sustainable ways and produce educational materials to inform others about

ways to act for the environment. This study challenges, and indeed contradicts,

suggestions by the North American Association for Environmental Education (2010)

that implies that young children will not fully understand the implications of their

current actions, nor grasp the concepts of limited natural resources or conservation.

This study, instead, serves as an example of successful early childhood education for

sustainability.

Chapter 5: Concluding the Study 158 Sharon Stuhmcke EdD Thesis 2012

CHAPTER FIVE

Concluding the Study

Early childhood education for sustainability is an emergent field, with young

children’s potential to engage in, and to act upon, sustainability issues still largely

unexplored by research. This study, which examined the broadening of early

childhood practice by embedding education for sustainability within it, has made a

contribution to the field. It has done this by utilising a transformative Project

Approach with a group of twenty-two kindergarten children who explored

environmental sustainability issues.

This final chapter begins by summarising the previous chapters before moving on

to address the study’s third research question: What is the ‘learning journey’ of the

teacher-researcher when her co-constructivist teaching approaches are extended

towards transformative early education? Next, key findings, theoretical

advancements, recommendations and implications of the study are discussed.

Finally, the thesis is concluded.

Summary of Previous Chapters

In Chapter one, the research interest and research questions were introduced.

Essentially, the study stemmed from my own concern about the current state of the

Earth, a personal interest in sustainability issues and a desire to improve my

classroom practice by addressing these issues in meaningful ways with young

children. Chapter two reviewed the literature pertaining to early childhood education

for sustainability and established the need for further research in this field. Early

childhood education for sustainability was found to be an emergent field with little

research underpinning its advancement. In this chapter a conceptual framework for

the study was presented. In essence the conceptual framework brought together


insights drawn from the two fields of study interest, early childhood education and

education for sustainability. Co-constructivist insights, drawn from the field of early

childhood education, were synthesised with transformative insights drawn from the

field of education for sustainability. Chapter three outlined the study’s methodology

which was an action research case study aimed at improving classroom practice.

Chapter four detailed the study’s data collection and analysis processes. This

chapter detailed the seven week timeframe of the children’s environment project and

showed the richness of children’s ideas, play, actions and solutions related to

environmental sustainability. Children demonstrated a plethora of understandings

about sustainability issues in a variety of ways. Data were analysed in response to

two of the study’s three research questions in this chapter. In a second layer of

analysis key themes were identified.

Research Question 3. The Teacher-Researcher’s Journey

It was anticipated that ways to improve teaching and learning about education for

sustainability would be gained as a result of participation in this action research

(McNiff, Lomax & Whitehead, 2003). Therefore, the third research question was

posed for this study:

What is the ‘learning journey’ of the teacher-researcher when her co-constructivist

teaching approaches are extended towards transformative early education? My

response follows. My learning journey during this research has been twofold. I have

been both the subject and the agent of change (Stevenson, 2007).

Transforming My Teaching Philosophy and Practices

By engaging in this action research study I have been able to research and

theorise my teaching practices rather than continue conforming (Kemmis, 2009) to

practices which I felt were unable to address sustainability or embed education for


sustainability into the kindergarten curricula. This meant a paradigm shift (Kemmis,

2009) from my longheld co-constructivist practices to the integration of

transformative practices. This synthesis has resulted in revised curriculum planning

and teaching approaches. In other words, the focus on co-constructing knowledge

has broadened to include teaching and learning strategies that assist young children

to enact change based on the knowledge that they co-construct.

The critical reflection embedded into this action research case study also enabled

me to recognise that there were already some transformative elements in my

teaching, but the study helped me develop these further. For example, open ended

questioning strategies have broadened from encouraging children to co-construct

knowledge to encouraging children to consider possible actions based on knowledge

they have developed. Children were able to devise solutions and enact these as

demonstrated by their water conservation measures in the sand pit when they chose

only to use cup-sized containers rather than larger buckets.

The study also raised questions for me in terms of considering the educational

influence of the teacher, the role of intentional teaching, and how additional areas of

sustainability such as the economic, social and political dimensions, might be

addressed using a transformative Project Approach. The use of democratic practices,

for example, has been part of my teaching repertoire for many years. In this action

research study, democratic practices were implemented in the earliest stages of the

children’s environment project when they conducted the nature hunt which was then

incorporated into the program. Other examples include when children made a

collaborative list of topics of interest, and, when children proposed solutions to

environmental issues such as leaving insects in their natural habitats and not picking

leaves off the trees. The children freely articulated these thoughts with one another


and with the teachers during their nature hunt. As children shared these thoughts,

their peers could be observed also taking care not to pick leaves and flowers or to

catch insects. This helped me recognise that I had been using democratic approaches

for some time and that the children knew how to operate effectively in a democratic

environment. It was here that they were free to offer ideas and propose solutions.

Moreover, children’s democratic behaviours influenced peers within the

kindergarten context to behave in similar ways.

However, participation in the study resulted in greater awareness of my own

practices. While I recognise that transformative elements, such as democratic

processes, were already present prior to the study taking place, the study enabled my

further development of these as well as the inclusion of other transformative

elements such as empowerment, agency and enacting change. During the study,

emphasis was placed on ways to facilitate children to enable them to enact change

based on their suggestions and ideas, a key tenet of transformative education. For

example, rather than asking open-ended questions and sharing thoughts and ideas for

environmental solutions, we found ways to act on these. An example of this was

when the children compiled their ideas about ways to show that they cared for the

environment. This was enacted by publishing the class book to educate others. The

first step was the co-construction of knowledge about caring for the environment.

The second transformative step was to enact a change.

During the study, questions were designed to scaffold children’s learning and

thinking and also to encourage them to think about ways they could act or create

change. Harris Helm and Katz (2011) describe teachers who use the Project

Approach as supporting children’s curiosity rather than ‘crushing’ children’s natural

curiosity and disposition to learn. Inclusion of transformative strategies, however,


provided children with expanded opportunities to enact change based on their

interests, curiosity and learning. In other words, with encouragement, children were

able to develop ‘ways to act’ based on the knowledge they had co-constructed.

Latter stages of the study saw examples where children became more empowered,

exercised agency and enacted change in relation to several environmental issues.

This was evidenced when children influenced others including families and local

community to take up environmentally sustainable practices. An example of this

was when posters were made for a local bakery to remind bakers to recycle empty

packaging.

Participation in the study also caused me to consider the educative influence of

myself as the teacher on children, particularly in relation to the pedagogical approach

appropriate for facilitating education for sustainability. Jenkins (2009) advocates a

teacher-facilitator approach for effective education for sustainability. A teacher-

facilitator approach occurs when the teacher establishes the learning environment so

that it responds to children’s needs and interests by paying attention to materials and

interactions ensuring these are appropriate (MacNaughton & Williams, 2009). This

approach aligns with education for sustainability as it provides children with the

opportunities to examine possibilities for change. MacNaughton and Williams

(2009) describe teacher-facilitators as encouraging independent learning and self

discovery. The argument made in this study is that a teacher-facilitator approach is

necessary for a transformative Project Approach. Teachers should facilitate both co-

constructivist and transformative activities through questioning, discussing and

scaffolding. Questioning, for example, can encourage children to co-construct

knowledge but also to consider ways to act upon this knowledge.


Initiating, leading and participating in this study has encouraged me to consider

the role of intentional teaching. For example, I surmised that the children’s interest

in environmental issues could easily be broadened to include learning about

Indigenous perspectives, particularly given the adjoining nature reserve’s Indigenous

heritage. However, an interest in Indigenous topics was not raised by children. This

could be attributed to the fact that none of the child participants had Indigenous

heritage. This then raises the question about the role of intentional teaching and

whether or not it would have been appropriate for me to influence the course of the

project by deliberately introducing Indigenous content. In the past I would have seen

that, by intentionally introducing Indigenous perspectives, I would have been

steering the children’s learning and would have been uncomfortable with this.

Intentional teaching is described in the EYLF document (Australian Government

DEEWR, 2009, p. 15) as an approach which sees educators move flexibly between

roles and utilising different strategies, fosters high level thinking skills, extends

children’s thinking and learning, is deliberate, purposeful and thoughtful. Therefore,

inclusion of Indigenous topics could have broadened the study to include the social

dimension of sustainability rather than focusing mainly on environmental

sustainability issues.

This has caused me to reflect further on my long-held views about building

curriculum around children’s demonstrated interests and to now consider future

inclusion of intentional teaching within the transformative Project Approach model.

By not introducing children to Indigenous culture, learning opportunities were lost. I

am not suggesting that I should have planned specific content or experiences that

could have potentially ‘steered’ the course of the children’s environment project. I

do, however, feel that the introduction of an appropriate Indigenous book or poster


may have ‘sparked’ the children’s interest. If this had occurred this interest could

have been explored in similar ways to the children’s other demonstrated interests.

By teaching intentionally, further dimensions of sustainability (political, social and

economic dimensions, Figure 1 in Chapter 2) can also become embedded parts of

early childhood curricula.

In summary, most significant for me was the realisation that involvement in this

study has been the catalyst for changes in my own teaching philosophy. This was

not immediately obvious upon the conclusion of the study. In hindsight, though, I

now see that use of a transformative lens has broadened my thinking, values and

practices as a teacher. I see this as an ongoing process. I began the study valuing,

but perhaps not fully practising, transformative practices. I conducted the study

practising and broadening transformative practices but now find these practices

embedded into my teaching and permeating the fabric of the kindergarten. I no

longer perceive my role as helping children to learn and co-construct knowledge

alone. I have re-conceptualised my role as one that encourages children to question

the status quo, to find new ways to solve problems, to be active participants and

contributors in their world.

Transforming Kindergarten Culture

It is now twenty months since the study was concluded. Distance from the study

has given me perspective and the realisation that the kindergarten is now operating

within a culture of sustainable change and transformative pedagogies similar to those

described by Davis et al. (2005). For example, staff, curriculum and management

committee decision-making and practices now reflect a heightened awareness of

sustainability issues and transformative practices. These include, decisions being

made with the specific intention of reducing the kindergarten’s carbon footprint (the


amount of carbon released into the atmosphere by the centre’s activities which

contributes to global warming) and making purchases of sustainable products such as

those made from materials that can be reproduced rather than from materials that are

finite. The following diagram (Figure 26) summarises the kindergarten practices that

were already in place prior to the study (blue circles) and those that occurred during,

and as a consequence of, the children’s environment project (green circles) and

represents a comparison with Figure 11, presented earlier. Figure 11 showed

sustainable practices in place prior to the study taking place.

This transformed culture and my learning journey as teacher and director are

interwoven. When the study began, I was already implementing a variety of

teaching practices that were also transformative such as democratic decision-making.

However, as the children responded to even more democratic approaches, I found we

were encouraged to continue to explore and implement further transformative

practices and that the children continued to be engaged. Davis (2010) describes:

A ‘culture of sustainability’ as the outcome hoped for when an early childhood centre brings sustainability thinking and practices into all aspects of its teaching, operation environment and relationships. This is where sustainability practices and habits, such as careful use of water and energy and democratic decision-making processes between all those involved in the centre- become part of every-day learning, routines and relationships (p.5).


Figure 26. Environmentally sustainable kindergarten practices before and after the study

Indicates pre-cursors to the study

Indicates environmentally sustainable practices that came about during the study

Children’s

further water

conservation practices

Class book – ways to act

for the environment

Re- cycling

posters for shops

Environment

-ally friendly cleaning practices

Water tank and sensor

taps – water conservation

Compost

-ing Planting policy in line with Reserve

Litter-less

lunches

Kinder- garten’s

environment

policy

Large, natural

playground

Kinder- garten’s location

The environment

model

Possum box

Further recycling practices introduced

Sustain-able

practices


The process, then, was a mutually-reinforcing cycle of transformation between

children and teachers. Not only does the cycle continue, it also ‘radiates’ out to

influence and change practices of those more widely associated with the

kindergarten such as the management committee. These relationships are illustrated

by the following diagram (Figure 27) which shows teachers and the children in the

centre engaged in the kindergarten’s new transformative curriculum, with radiating

arrows pointing to examples of how embedding education for sustainability into the

kindergarten curriculum has influenced wider areas of decision-making and practices

within the kindergarten and with those agencies and people associated with the

kindergarten.

Figure 27. The influence of the kindergarten’s culture of change

Staff and

children

engaged in transformative

education

Management

committee

decisions reflect sustainability principles

Other outside

agencies, for example: recycling posters made by children for shops

Kindergarten

purchasing

practices

Example: recycled materials

Grant

applications for sustainable infrastructure. Example: solar panels

Longterm

kindergarten plans influenced by sustainability Example: mural on external walls to reflect realistic pictures of local flora and fauna


The following list further outlines short and long term plans made by the teaching

staff and management committees since the children’s environment project in 2010:

2011 Successful solar grant application and the installation of solar panels to

lessen reliance on fossil fuels.

2011 New purchases of children’s equipment made from recycled materials

including recycling trucks, animal sets and bamboo construction set to

provide resources that reinforce recycling practices with children.

2011 Implementation of electronic communication for newsletters, fee

accounts and receipts to reduce paper consumption.

2012 Re-painting of external kindergarten building from a stylised sea mural

to one reflecting flora and fauna found in the neighbouring reserve. This

project will be designed in consultation with the local community group

that cares for the reserve, aimed at heightening awareness of, and

respect, for the natural environment.

2012 Implementing many of the children’s ideas within the playground

including a dry creek bed feature and native planting.

Key Findings

This study found that young children are interested in, and concerned about,

environmental sustainability issues. They expressed this interest and concerns

during their regular participation in the kindergarten program, and these were

recorded during data collection process. Strife (2012) states that “voicing the

environmental concerns of children … may encourage broader public support for

policies designed to overcome the future environmental challenges that children will

face” (p.39). This means that, by responding to children’s interests and concerns

about environmental sustainability through embedded curricula, families and


community may also take up sustainable practices. Intergenerational influence is a

potentially powerful means to engage others towards sustainability (Ballantyne,

Connell & Fien, 2006). This study showed that children influenced their families

and local community when shopping practices were changed and recycling posters

were made. A further example of this potential influence was when the children cast

themselves as educators through the creation of their class book that had the specific

aim of educating others.

It was also found that the Project Approach supported children towards more

completely understanding complex issues through knowledge co-construction. The

children came to the understanding that water is a finite resource and illustrated this

understanding when they implemented water conservation measures into their daily

routines and water play. Such understandings were also illustrated when children

introduced further recycling practices at the kindergarten. These examples show that

addressing complex sustainability issues in early childhood education is within the

scope of understanding of young children.

Another finding was that, when transformative approaches were utilised, children

were able to act as change agents for the environment. In this study children were

supported and encouraged towards problem-seeking, problem-solving and action-

taking within their environment. This is described by Davis (2010) as transformative

education. This study involved children participating in a democratic environment

and creating change. Children acted as change agents in their: water use; recycling

measures; creation and distribution of recycling posters to local shops; waste

reduction; pollution control; influence on family shopping practices; ways to treat

flora and fauna; provision of animal housing within the playground (possum box);

and, creation of educational resources.


The final key finding was that the kindergarten’s involvement in the study

continues to influence decision-making and practices towards sustainability. Davis

and Pratt (2005) describe deep level cultural change within organisations, in this case

towards sustainability, as an evolutionary process which advances incrementally and

intermittently. These authors go on to describe characteristics of such change, as

starting with a moral purpose and characterised by a collaborative learning culture.

Although this study began with the interest of one of the kindergarten teachers, the

study became the catalyst for change within the kindergarten overall. Providing

impetus for these changes has been the ongoing interest and participation of the

children including those enrolled at the kindergarten since the study took place.

Theoretical Advancements

This section revisits the study’s conceptual framework introduced in Chapter two

and revisited here. As stated earlier, this was designed to provide a ‘lens’ through

which to view this research, representing my existing beliefs and teaching practices.

Figure 5. Conceptual framework – Young Children as Change Agents for

Sustainability


This conceptual framework had value at the start of the study as it provided a

‘roadmap’ for me as a beginning researcher. Essentially it provided me with a

starting point and enabled me to keep key teaching strategies for early childhood

education for sustainability at the forefront of my thinking, planning and teaching.

In particular it helped me consider ways to broaden the suite of co-constructivist

practices so that children could act on the knowledge they co-constructed in order to

bring about change.

Right up to the present, most practitioners in early childhood education champion

socio-constructivist approaches (Hazard, 2011). This study’s investigation into

education for sustainability, however, has provided a new way of theorising early

childhood education. The study has advanced early childhood education theory by

successfully synthesising two theoretical perspectives. This study responded to calls

by Davis (2010), Pramling Samuelsson and Kaga (2008) and Robinson and Vaealiki

(2010) to broaden early childhood educational approaches to include education for

sustainability and transformative practices rather than to continue with teaching and

learning approaches that focus on learning in and about the environment.

As established in Chapter two, environmental education alone fails to contribute

to developing sustainable practices or creating agents of change for sustainability

(Davis, 2010). This study has provided evidence that longheld early childhood

traditions of environmental and nature education can be extended so that young

children continue to learn in and about the environment, but also for the environment

by participating in transformative education approaches.

Transformative Project Approach in Early Childhood Education Contexts

In essence, this study provides a new way of viewing the Project Approach. The

Project Approach has been re-conceptualised and reinvigorated in order to address


the contemporary complexities posed by sustainability issues. Thus, this new model

(Figure 25) revisited here, advances early childhood education theory by identifying

and including essential elements necessary for transformative early education and

successful early childhood education for sustainability. The colour scheme used in

the model correlates with the study’s conceptual framework. For example, insights

drawn from co-constructivist early childhood education are represented in the blue

section (left side), and insights drawn from transformative education for

sustainability are represented in the green section (right side). The grey section

(surrounding central oval) represents the essential teacher-facilitator role necessary

to facilitate a transformative Project Approach. This model is a practical tool that

can be utilised by early childhood teachers to help inform and guide teaching

practice.

Figure 25. The transformative Project Approach

Co- constructivist learning & teaching *Projects *Documentation *Co-constructed knowledge

Transformative learning & teaching *Enacting change

*Thinking critically

*Being empowered

and acting with agency

Teacher as facilitator

Transformative Project

Approach

Young Children as

Change Agents for Sustainability


Children as Change Agents

In this study it was found that using a transformative Project Approach

encouraged children to be agents of change for sustainability. This study challenged

traditional views of children and supported notions of children as competent, capable

and able to enact change. Developmentalist views of children position them as

needing to be cared for rather than being able to care (Robinson & Vaealiki, 2010).

Contradicting this view, this study provided examples of children caring about

environmental sustainability and enacting changes based on their care. Davis (2011)

describes child participation and agency as central to early childhood education for

sustainability and based on children’s rights. As Robinson and Vaealiki (2010) state,

“Early childhood education for sustainability promotes the view that children have a

voice that provides them with opportunities to influence their world” (p.162).

As already reported, children were the catalysts for sustainable change in a variety

of ways. They did influence their families and the community. This

intergenerational influence is described by Ballantyne, Connell and Fien (2006) as a

potentially powerful means to engage others, already perhaps with established

patterns of unsustainable practices, towards sustainability.

The children involved in this study provided a legacy for future kindergarten

classes. New kindergarten classes in the centre now begin their learning at a

different starting point from the children who participated in the 2010 project. To

explain, the kindergarten now has embedded education for sustainability. For

example, the possum box, instigated by the child participants in this study, is an

established fixture and point of learning for kindergarten children now and into the

future. Practices, such as recycling yoghurt containers and conserving water in sand-

play, are now embedded and natural parts of every day.


Practical Advancement: Teacher Roles in Early Childhood Education for

Sustainability

This study contributes to teacher practice by providing examples of ‘how to do

education for sustainability’ with young children by providing a case study which

used the Project Approach, an approach familiar to early childhood educators. It

spells out how the project developed, describes the various learning experiences that

occurred, and the teaching strategies that were employed. Although the study was

not designed with curricular replication in mind, early childhood teachers who might

be hesitant or unsure about how to include education for sustainability into their

early childhood programs could take ideas from this study and utilise these in their

own curriculum planning and pedagogical practice.

Recommendations of the Study

Engaging in this study leads me to make the following recommendations for both

education for sustainability and early childhood education.

Education for Sustainability in Early Childhood

It is recommended, in this study, that education for sustainability should begin in

early childhood education. This recommendation is supported by Davis (2010,

2011), Pramling Samuelsson and Kaga (2008), and Robinson and Vaealiki (2010).

However, as early childhood education for sustainability becomes more mainstream,

it remains under-researched and under-theorised (Davis, 2011). This study supports

the recommendation through its contributions to both research and theory on which,

it is argued, early childhood education for sustainability can develop. In terms of

research, the study has shown that young children can actively engage in, and enact

change, with issues relating to them (Davis, 2011). In terms of theory, the study has

shown that transformative education practices that align with education for


sustainability can be integrated into early childhood education. Furthermore, the

transformative Project Approach model was provided as a means to achieve this.

Early Childhood Education should embrace Education for Sustainability

Belonging, Being and Becoming. The Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF,

2009) is the Australian national curriculum for early childhood education in

Australia, forming part of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) reform

agenda (Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and

Workplace Relations for the Council of Australian Governments, 2009). However, it

is virtually silent about education for sustainability. As a final research activity for

this study, I recently conducted a word search of this document to gain a sense of

how or whether education for sustainability was positioned in this document. The

word search revealed that environmental education is noted once, education for

sustainability is not used at all; construction is mentioned once, transformative

education is not mentioned at all; critical reflection is mentioned but only in relation

to teachers; and, action is mentioned 17 times but not in relation to environmental

education. The slow response by early childhood education to make the shift from

environmental education to education for sustainability, as discussed in Chapter 2, is

reflected by the document’s use of these terms. For example, Belonging, Being and

Becoming. The Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF, 2009) uses the term

environmental education rather than education for sustainability.

A second document of importance to Queensland C&K kindergartens is the

curriculum Building Waterfalls (C&K, 2011). As the kindergarten in this study is

affiliated with C&K it is required to work within C&K’s guidelines. Building

Waterfalls has four currents of thought which are: connecting, enlarging, listening

and exploring. Within the ‘connecting’ current of thought there are three shared


understandings. One of these is ‘we are connected to a sustainable world’. This is

explained as occurring when children and teachers: respect the planet; investigate

and promote the possibilities and properties of the environment; and communicate a

commitment to a sustainable future (C&K, 2011, p.16). The associated learning

statement specifies that children will “discover, connect with and act responsibly in

the natural and built environment” (C&K, 2011, p.16). Although the term ‘act’ is

used, it relates more to doing the right thing rather than embedding notions of

participation in enacting environmental change. For example the learning statement

could read children are encouraged towards discovery, connection, participation

and action for the natural and built environments in ways that contribute to a

sustainable future. This revised learning statement fits more within a transformative

educational approach and, therefore, aligns better with education for sustainability.

A third document, A Guide to the National Quality Standard (Australian

Children’s Education & Care Quality Authority, 2011), recognizes that early

childhood services can contribute towards embedding sustainability into practices

and educational programmes. This regulatory document requires early childhood

services to comply with Standard 3.3 (p. 83) which involves services taking an active

role in embedding sustainable practices and children being supported towards

becoming environmentally responsible and showing respect for the environment.

Looking at these three documents highlights two important points. First, that

education for sustainability is not yet embedded within early childhood curricula,

and, second, early childhood curricula cannot be characterised as transformative

education. Based on the evidence provided by this study, it is recommended that

early childhood educators engage more fully with transformative education


approaches in order to embed education for sustainability into early childhood

education.

Future Research

Future research possibilities are now identified. First, longitudinal studies could

be conducted on the later life stages of children who experience education for

sustainability in early childhood settings to find whether early experiences continue

to influence them. Second, further research into early childhood education where

transformative teaching and learning approaches are central to curriculum to explore

children’s practices and influences on communities. Third, research could be

conducted that follows young children into primary school settings where

transformative education practices are employed to gain insight into how and

whether children continue to enact change as they grow older.

First, longitudinal studies into the impact of early childhood education for

sustainability on later life-stages are required, to explore long-term outcomes of

starting early with education for sustainability. For example, researchers could

identify whether or not young children (who experience education for sustainability

within their early childhood education experiences) are influenced towards

sustainable practices in later everyday life.

Second, future research into early childhood education where transformative

teaching and learning approaches are the central focus, could explore evidence of

children’s pro-environmental attitudes, practices, actions and the impact these have

on communities. As identified by this study, young children influenced and

educated their families and communities about education for sustainability based on

their own learning, decision-making and action-taking.


Third, further research into the long-term influences of a transformative project

teaching approach beyond kindergarten would make an interesting extension.

Young children involved in early childhood education for sustainability at

kindergarten could be the focus of research that follows them into primary school

where transformative education practices are also employed. Research into

transformative teaching and learning approaches could contribute further insight into

how young children are able to continue enacting change and participating in

transformative ways as they get older. Littledyke and McCrea (2009) state that:

Often another challenge is the tension between early childhood education practices and those adopted by the primary school. The process orientation and play-based nature of early childhood education and the more content-oriented practice of primary education can result in a sense of dislocation for young children as they begin primary school (p.51).

This study gives insight into young children’s participation, ideas and thoughts

about sustainability and highlights the need for future research that is similarly

“cognisant of children’s rights to have a voice and share their perspectives about

early childhood education for sustainability” (Mackey & Vaealiki, 2011).

Implications for Researchers Working with Young Children

This study also highlights implications for other researchers, especially those

working with a classroom of young children. As a researcher, I faced a number of

issues and dilemmas related to dealing with large groups of children. In particular, it

was not always possible to note what an individual child had to say during group

time when several children speak simultaneously and often suggest similar ideas.

Upon reflection, I attributed this dilemma to the co-constructed learning environment

designed to support children learning from one another and taking up or extending

the ideas expressed by their peers. During the process of obtaining ethical clearance,

however, I was required to nominate a specified number of children who would be


engaged in the study. This was difficult due to the group learning and shared

experiences that typically occurred throughout the data collection process.

My dilemma was that, by not including the contributions of some children, I

would have been denying them the right to participate in research to which they had

consented. MacNaughton and Hughes (2009, p.91) raise the question about ‘who

has the right to refuse children’s involvement in research?’ In the instance of this

study, consent to participate was gained from all children and their parents. For me

this raised the issue of my rights to include or exclude children’s contributions when

they had consented to participate. An implication, therefore, could be the re-

examination of the ethical clearance processes in relation to specifying the number of

children who will participate. This requirement did not suit the unpredictable nature

of working with young children in groups.

By its very nature action research is open-ended and often follows an ‘emergent’

path (MacNaughton & Hughes, 2009). The researcher is involved in the action

research cycle and the study’s outcomes emerge with each step, giving the study

unclear direction (MacNaughton & Hughes, 2009). This was the case in this study.

This unclear and emergent research approach requires an ethics process which caters

for it.

Conclusion

This thesis examined education for sustainability in an early childhood setting and

has shown that young children are capable of co-constructing knowledge and

learning about environmental sustainability as well as enacting environmentally

sustainable change in their kindergarten, family and wider community contexts. It

responds to the calls by Davis (2010) for early childhood education to ‘fully engage’

with education for sustainability, by conducting research into early childhood


education for sustainability and developing teaching and learning approaches that

support its authentic inclusion. This thesis provides a case study which explores

early childhood education for sustainability, a topic not common in the field of early

childhood education according to Pramling Samuelsson and Kaga (2008). These

authors also advise that education for sustainability can be addressed by broadening

established early childhood pedagogies rather than discarding them. Robinson and

Vaealiki (2010) also recommend that current early childhood education approaches

be examined to determine if they can enable children to participate in education for

sustainability. This study has responded to these recommendations by building upon

an established early childhood approach, the Project Approach, and including

transformative insights drawn from the field of education for sustainability.

To summarise, findings from this study imply that predominantly co-

constructivist early childhood education can be enhanced by integrating

transformative teaching approaches to facilitate early childhood education for

sustainability. This synthesis provides educators and young children with a platform

to learn in, about and for environmental sustainability. In other words, young

children can be supported to co-construct knowledge about environmental

sustainability but can also act on this knowledge.

The study continues to influence me as the teacher-researcher. My involvement

in this study has developed my reflective practice and raised additional questions

about how my transformative Project Approach can be further developed to include

aspects of education for sustainability beyond the environmental focus. Further, a

culture of change continues within the kindergarten. The children’s environment

project has been the catalyst for deep changes in thinking, practices and ongoing

emphasis on sustainability issues at the kindergarten.

References 181 Sharon Stuhmcke EdD Thesis 2012

REFERENCES

Anfara, V. A., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on

stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7),

28-38.

Angrosino, M. V. (2008). Recontextualizing observation: Ethnography, pedagogy,

and the prospects for a progressive political agenda. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S.

Lincoln, (Eds.), Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials (pp. 161-

183). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

Ardzejewska, K., & Coutts, P. M. (2004). Teachers who support Reggio –

exploring understandings of the philosophy. Australian Journal of Early

Childhood, 29(4), 17-23.

Arseneau, R., & Rodenburg, D. (1998). The developmental perspective:

Cultivating ways of thinking. In D. D. Pratt, (Ed.), Five Perspectives on

Teaching in Adult and Higher Education (pp. 105- ). Malabar, FL: Krieger.

Arthur, L., Beecher, B., Death, E., Dockett, S., & Farmer, S. (2008). Programming

and planning in early childhood settings. 4th ed. Australia: Nelson.

Atherton, J. S. (2005). Constructivist Theory. Learning and teaching:

Constructivism in learning. Retrieved October 20, 2006, from

http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning.constructivism.htm

Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority. (2011). Guide to the

National Quality Standard. Retrieved Ocrober 29, 2012, from

http://acecqa.gov.au/storage/3%20-

%20Guide%20to%20the%20National%20Quality%20Standard%20FINAL.pdf


Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2012).

Sustainability. Retrieved March 11, 2012, from

http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/CrossCurriculumPriorities/Sustainability

Australian Government. (2012). Clean Energy Future. Retrieved March 11, 2012,

from http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/clean-energy-future/an-overview-of-

the-clean-energy- legislative-package/

Australian Government, Department of Climate Change. (2008). Kyoto Protocol.

Retrieved January 24, 2008, from

http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/international/kyoto/index.html

Australian Government, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace

Relations. (2009). Early Years Learning Framework. Retrieved February 25,

2010, from

http://www.deewr.gov.au/EarlyChildhood/Policy_Agenda/Quality/Pages/EarlyYe

arsLearningamework.aspx

Australian Government, Department of the Environment and Heritage. (2000).

Environmental education for a sustainable future. National action plan.

Retrieved April, 11, 2010, from http://www.environment.gov.au/education

Australian Government, Department of Environment and Heritage (2005a). A

National Review of Environmental Education and its Contribution to

Sustainability in Australia. School Education, (2).

Australian Government, Department of the Environment and Heritage (2005b).

Educating for a sustainable future. A National Environmental Education

Statement for Australian Schools. Carlton South: Curriculum Corporation.

Australian Government, Department of Environment and Heritage. (2007). Caring

for our Future. The Australian Government Strategy for the United Nations


Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, 2005-2014. Canberra:

Australian Government.

Australian Government, Department of Environment and Water Resources. (2007).

An overview. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from

http://www.urbisjhd.com/index.cfm?contentid=445

Australian Government, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the

Arts. (2009). Living sustainably. The Australian Government’s national action

plan for education for sustainability. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Baker, J. (1988). Where the Forest Meets the Sea. London: Walker Books.

Baker, J. (1988). Window. London: Walker Books.

Ballantyne, R., Connell, S. & Fien, J. (2006). Children as catalysts of environmental

change: A framework for researching intergenerational influence through

environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 12(3-4), 413-427.

Bassey, M. (2007). Case studies. In A. R. J. Briggs and M. Coleman, Research

methods in educational leadership and management (pp. 142-155). 2nd ed.

London: SAGE Publications.

Bates, S., & Tregenza, N. (2006). Education for sustainability in the early years.

A case study. Australian sustainable schools initiative. South Australia.

Retrieved April 11, 2010, from

http://www.decs.sa.gov.au/efs/files/pages/HallettCovePreschoolCaseSt.pdf

Bencze (2005). Co-constructivist learning theory. Constructivism. Retrieved

October 20, 2006, from http://leo.oise.utoronto.ca/-lbencze/Construstivism.html.

Beneke, S., & Ostrosky, M. M. (2009). Teachers’ views of the efficacy of

incorporating the project approach into classroom practice with diverse learners.


Early Childhood Research and Practice, 11(1). Retrieved March 24, 2010, from

http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v11n1/ostrosky.html

Bethel, E. (2008). Michael Recycle. Australia: Koala Books.

Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., & Tight, M. (1996). How to research. Buckingham: Open

University Press.

Borgia, E. T., & Schuler, D. (1996). Action research in early childhood education.

(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED401047) Retrieved April 22,

2006, from http://www.ericdigests.org/1997-2/action.htm

Bredekamp, S. (Ed.). (1986). Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early

Childhood Programs Serving Children From Birth Through Age 8. USA:

NAEYC.

Buchan, J. (2004). Successful environmental education: Adapting to the educational

habitat. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 20(1), 45-55.

Bullard, J. A., & Bullock, J. R. (2002). Frameworking collaboration, in-depth

projects, and cognitive discourse: a Reggio Emilia and project approach course.

Early Childhood Research and Practice, 4(2), Retrieved June 11, 2006, from

http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v4n2/bullard.html

Burnaford, G. E. (2001). Teachers’ work: methods for researching teaching. In G.

Burnaford, J. Fischer and D. Hobson (Eds.), Teachers doing research. The

power of action through inquiry (pp. 148-168). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum

associates.

Burnett, N. (2008). Preface. In I. Pramling Samuelsson and Y. Kaga (Eds.), The

contribution of early childhood education to a sustainable society (pp. 9).

Paris: UNESCO.

Burns, R. B. (1994). Introduction to research methods. Melbourne: Longman.


Burton, D., and Bartlett, S. (2005). Practitioner research for teachers. London:

Paul Chapman publishing.

Byrnes, J. P. (1996). Cognitive development and learning in instructional contexts.

Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

C&K. (2011). Building Waterfalls: A guideline for children’s learning and for

teaching in kindergarten. 2nd ed. Australia: C&K.

Castillo, C., and Marshall, E. (2003). Objectivism versus constructivism. Retrieved

February 17, 2008, from http://www.tri-

ssociation.org/mano/PDF_documents/Objectivism_vs_Constructivism_Handout.p

df

Centre for Environment and Sustainability. GMV. (2009). The Gothenburg

recommendations on education for sustainable development. Chalmers:

University of Gothenburg.

Chapman, D. (2004). Environmental education and politics: snakes and ladders

revisited. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 20(2), 23-30.

Chard, S. (2001). Project Approach. In early childhood and elementary education.

Retrieved January 14, 2006, from http://www.project-approach.com

Chard, S. (2011). The Project Approach. Retrieved April 25, 2012, from

http://www.project-pproach.com/definition.html

Chawla, L. (1999). Life paths into effective environmental action. Journal of

Environmental Education, 31(1), 15-26.

Chawla, L., & Flanders Cushing, D. (2007). Education for strategic environmental

behaviour. Environmental Education Research, 13(4), 437-452.

Clark, A. (2005). Listening to and involving young children: a review of research

and practice. Early Childhood Development and Care, 175(6), 489-503.


Clark, A. (2006). Changing classroom practice to include the project approach.

Early Childhood Research and Practice, 8(2). Retrieved January 3, 2007, from

http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v8n2/clark.html

Clark, A. (2007). A hundred ways of listening. Gathering children’s perspectives of

their early childhood environment. Young Children, 62(3), 76-81.

Clyde, M. (1995). Concluding the debate: Mind games – what DAP means to me.

In M. Fleer. DAPcentrism. Challenging developmentally appropriate practice.

Watson, ACT: AECA.

Cooke, S. (2010). Healthy and sustainable environments for children and

communities. In J. Davis (Ed.), Young children and the environment. Early

education for sustainability (pp. 242-272). Sydney: Cambridge University Press.

Cosco, N. G. (2007). Developing evidence-based design. Environmental

interventions for healthy development of young children in the outdoors. In C.

Ward-Thompson, and P. Travlou. (Eds.), Open space: people space (pp.

125136). New York: Milton Park.

Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research. Planning, conducting, and

evaluating qualitative and qualitative research. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Pearson.

Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of social research. Meaning and perspective in

the research process. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.

Curriculum Corporation (2007). A look inside education for sustainability. What is

sustainability? Retrieved September 9, 2008, from

[email protected]

Cutter-Mackenzie, A., and Edwards, S. (2006). Everyday environmental education

experiences: The role of content in early childhood education. Australian

Journal of Environmental Education, 22(2), 13-19.


Danby, S., & Farrell, A. (2004). Accounting for young children’s competence in

educational research: new perspectives on research ethics. The Australian

Educational Researcher, 31(3), 35-49.

David, L., & Gordon, C. (2007). The down-to-earth guide to global warming.

Sydney: Scholastic.

Davis, J. (2007a). Climate change and sustainability: ‘Reaching the tipping point’.

Voice, 3(3), 2.

Davis, J. (2007b). Climate change and its impact on young children. Early

Childhood Australia. Retrieved April 10, 2010, from

http://www.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/resource_themes/sustainability_global

arming_and_climate_change/climate_change_and_its_impact_on_young_childre

n.html

Davis, J. (2009). Revealing the research ‘hole’ of early childhood for sustainability:

A preliminary survey of the literature. Environmental Education Research.

15(2), 227-241.

Davis, J. (2010a). Early childhood education for sustainability: Why it matters, what

it is, and how whole centre action research and systems thinking can help.

Journal of Action Research Today in Early Childhood, 35-44.

Davis, J. (2010b). Young children and the environment. Early education for

sustainability. Sydney: Cambridge University Press.

Davis, J. (2011). Early childhood education. In Green Education (pp. 115-117).

Julie Newman (Ed). Los Angeles: SAGE Reference.

Davis, J., & Elliott, S. (2003). Early childhood environmental education. Making it

mainstream. Early Childhood Australia Inc.


Davis, Julie M. & Pratt, Robert (2005) Creating Cultural Change @ Campus

Kindergarten: The Sustainable Planet Project. Every Child, 11(4), 10-11.

Davis, J., Rowntree, N., Gibson, M. Pratt, R. & Eglington, A. (2005). Creating a

culture of sustainability: from project to integrated education for

sustainability at Campus kindergarten. In W. L. Filho (Ed.), Handbook of

Sustainability Research. New York: Peter Lang.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). Collecting and interpreting qualitative

materials (3rd ed.), Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and education. An introduction to the philosophy of

education. New York: The Free Press.

Diezmann, C. M., & Watters, J. J. (2000). An enrichment philosophy and strategy

for empowering young gifted children to become autonomous learners. Gifted

and Talented International, 15(1), 6-18.

Dixon, B. (2001). Purposeful learning: a study of water. Early Childhood Research

and Practice, 3(2). Retrieved July 28, 2007, from

http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v3n2/dixon.html

Dockett, S., & Perry, B. (1996). Young children’s construction of knowledge.

Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 21(4), 6-11.

Dockett, S., & Perry, B. (2005). Researching with children: Insights from the

starting school research project. Early Child Development and Care, 175(6),

507-521.

Dombkowski, K. (2002). Kindergarten teacher training in England and the United

States 1850-1918. History of Education, 31(5), 475-489.


Dunne, M., Pryor, J., & Yates, P. (2005). Becoming a researcher. A research

companion for the social sciences. In H. Torrance (Series Ed.), Conducting

Educational Research. England: Open University Press.

Early Childhood Australia Inc. (2006). Early Childhood Australia’s Code of Ethics.

Retrieved May 20, 2007, from

http://www.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/code_of_ethics/earlychildhood_austral

ias_code_of _ethics.html

Early Childhood Australia Inc. (2007). Make your voice heard on early childhood

sustainability education. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from

http://www.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/early_childhood_news/jan_2007_make

_your_voic e_heard_on_early_childhood_sustainability_education.html

Earth Charter (2000). The Earth Charter Initiative. Retrieved December, 17, 2007

from http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/2000/10/the_earth_charter.html.

Edwards, A. (2001). Qualitative designs and analysis. In G. MacNaughton, S. A.

Rolfe and I. S. Siraj-Blatchford (2001). Doing early childhood research.

International perspectives on theory and practice (pp. 117-135). Australia: Allen

& Unwin.

Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. (1994). The hundred languages of children.

The Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education. New Jersey: Ablex

Publishing.

Edwards, S. (2005). Children’s learning and developmental potential: examining the

theoretical informants of early childhood curricula from the educator’s

perspective. Early Years, 25(1), 67-80.


Edwards, S., & Cutter-Mackenzie, A. (2011). Environmentalising early childhood

education curriculum through pedagogies of play. Australasian Journal of Early

Childhood, 36(1), 51-59.

Elliott, A. (2007). Building and nurturing ecologically sustainable values and

practices. Every Child, 13(1), 2.

Elliott, S. (2008). The outdoor playspace naturally for children birth to five years.

New South Wales: Pademelon press.

Elliott, S. (2010). Children in the natural world. In J. Davis (Ed.), Young children

and the environment. Early education for sustainability (pp. 43-75). Sydney:

Cambridge University Press.

Elliott, S., & Davis, J. (2009). Exploring the resistance: An Australian perspective

on educating for sustainability in early childhood. International Journal of Early

Childhood, 41(2), 65-76.

Farrell, A. (2005). Ethical research with children. Berkshire: Open University

Press.

Ferreira, J., & Davis, J. (2010). Creating deep and broad change through research

and systems approaches in early childhood education for sustainability. In J.

Davis (Ed.), Young children and the environment. Early education for

sustainability (pp. 273-291). Sydney: Cambridge University Press.

Fien, J. (1993). Education for the Environment. Critical curriculum theorising and

environmental education. Australia: Deakin University.

Fien, J. (2004). Education for sustainability. In R. Gilbert (Ed.), Studying society

and environment. A guide for Teachers (3rd ed.) (pp. 184-200). South

Melbourne: Thomson.


Fien, J. (2006). A letter from the future: UNESCO and the DESD. Australian

Journal of Environmental Education, 22(1), 63-81.

Fisher, J. (2002). Starting from the child. Teaching and learning from 3 to 8.

Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Fleer, M. (1995). DAPcentrism: Challenging Developmentally Appropriate

Practice. Watson, ACT: AECA.

Forman, G. (2005). The project approach in Reggio Emilia. In C. Twomey Fosnot

(Ed.), Constructivism. Theory, perspectives and practice (2nd ed.) (pp. 212-221).

New York: Teachers College Press.

Forman, G. and Hall, E. (2005). Wondering with children: the importance of

observation in early education. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 7(2),

Retrieved April 4, 2006, from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v7n2/forman.html

Fox, M., Martin, P. & Green, G. (2007). Doing Practitioner Research. London:

SAGE.

Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Fuzne Koszo, M. (2006). Many-sided evaluation through action research and

environmental education in the practice of teacher education. In R. Kyburz-

Graber, P. Hart, P. Posch and I. Robottom (Eds.), Reflective Practice in

Teacher Education (pp. 113-127). Bern: Peter Lang.

Gambino, A., Davis, J. & Rowntree, N. (2009). Young children learning for the

environment: Researching a forest adventure. Australian Journal of

Environmental Education, 25, 83-94.

Gandini, L. (1993). Fundamentals of the Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood

education. Young Children, November, 4-8.


Garnaut, R. (2008). The Garnaut Climate Change Review. Port Melbourne:

Cambridge University Press.

Gaul, J., Davis, J., Van der Graff, A., & Elliott, S. (2007). AAEE early childhood

special interest group response to the discussion paper ‘Development of a new

national action plan for education for sustainable development’.

Geist, E., & Baum, A. (2005). Yeah, but’s: That keep teachers from embracing an

active curriculum. Young Children. Beyond the Journal. July ed., Retrieved

April 25, 2006, from http://www.journal.naeyc.org/btj/200507/03Geist.asp

Giroux, H. (1983). Critical theory and educational practice. Deakin University:

Victoria.

Giroux, H. (2003). The abandoned generation. Democracy beyond the culture of

fear. Palgrave MacMillan: USA.

Giroux, H. (2006). The Giroux reader. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.

Glaser, B. G. with the assistance of Holton, J. (2004). Reworking grounded theory.

The Grounded Theory Review, 4(1), 1-24.

Glassman, M., & Whaley, K. (2000). Dynamic aims: The use of long-term projects

in early childhood classrooms in light of Dewey’s educational philosophy. Early

Childhood Research and Practice, 2(1), Retrieved September 13, 2005, from

http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v2n1/glassman.html

Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research.

The Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597-606.

Gonzalez-Gaudiano, E. J. (2006). Environmental education: a field in tension or in

transition? Environmental Education Research, 12(3), 291-300.

Goodfellow, J. (2005). Researching with/for whom? Stepping in and out of

practitioner research. Australian journal of early childhood, 30(4), 48-57.


Gordon Technical College. (1993). Playing for keeps. Environmentally responsible

practices for early childhood learning. Armadale: Eleanor Curtain publishing.

Gosford & Wyong Councils (2006). Little green steps. Preschools sustainability

program. Project evaluation. Retrieved April, 11, 2010, from

http://www.wyong.nsw.gov.au/environment/preschool_environmental_edu.html

Gough, A. (1997). Education and the environment: Policy, trends and the problems

of marginalization. Melbourne: ACER.

Green, J. (2006). Why Should I Protect Nature? New York: Scholastic.

Green, J. (2006). Why Should I Recycle? New York: Scholastic.

Green, J. (2006). Why Should I Save Energy? New York: Scholastic.

Green, J. (2006). Why Should I Save Water? New York: Scholastic.

Grieshaber, S., & Hatch, J. A. (2003). Child observation and pedagogical

documentation as effects of globalization. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing,

19(1), 89-102.

Grover, S. (2004). Why won’t they listen to us? On giving power and voice to

children participating in social research. Childhood, 11(1), 81-93.

Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. Boston: Beacon Press.

Harcourt, D., & Conroy, H. (2005). Informed assent: Ethics and processes when

researching with young children. Early Child Development and Care, 175(6),

567- 577.

Harris Helm, J. (2000). Implementing the project approach: What teachers say.

The Project Catalog 3, Retrieved June 11, 2006, from

http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/eecearchive/books/projcat3.html#helm


Harris Helm, J., & Gronlund, G. (2000). Linking standards and engaged learning in

the early years. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 2(1), Retrieved

September 13, 2005, from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v2n1/helm.html

Harris Helm, J., & Katz, L. (2011). Young Investigators. The project approach in

the early years. NAEYC: Teachers College Press.

Hart, R. A. (1997). Children’s participation: The theory and practice of involving

young citizens in community development and environmental care. New York:

Unicef.

Hart, R. (2006). Hart’s ladder of young people’s participation. Freechild project.

Connecting young people and social change. Retrieved January 3, 2007, from

http://www.freechild.org/ladder.htm

Hazard, M. (2011). Learning stories: One way to assess and report – professionals

and children working together. Every Child, 17(3), 14-15.

Hazer Sancar, F., & Can Servercan, Y. (2010). In search of agency: participation in

a youth organisation in Turkey. In B. Percy-Smith, & N. Thomas (Eds.), A

Handbook of Children and Young People’s Participation (pp. 277-286). London:

Routledge.

Henderson, B., Meier, D., & Perry, G. (2004). Voices of practitioners: Teacher

research in early childhood education. Young Children, 59(2), 94-100.

Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2005). The action research dissertation. A guide for

students and faculty. London: SAGE.

Hicks, D., & Holden, C. (2007). Remembering the future: What do children think?

Environmental Education Research, 13(2), 501-512.

Hill, T. L., Stremmel, A. J., & Fu, V. R. (2005). Teaching as inquiry. Rethinking

curriculum in early childhood education. Boston: Pearson.


Hocking, M. (2008). Planning for children in natural playspaces. In S. Elliott (Ed.),

The outdoor playspace naturally for children birth to five years (pp. 133-152).

Castle Hill: Pademelon Press.

Hodgkinson, H. (1982). Moving mainstream: Taking a closer look at teacher

research. Language Arts, 73, 124-140.

Hoepper, B., & Vick, M. (2004). Time, continuity and change. In R. Gilbert (Ed.),

Studying Society and Environment (pp. 221-238). South Melbourne: Thomson.

Holly, M. L., Arhar, J., & Kasten, W. (2009). Action research for teachers.

Traveling the yellow brick road. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.

Hopwood, N. (2007). Environmental education: pupils’ perspectives on classroom

experience. Environmental Education Research, 13(4), 453-465.

Hughes, P. (2001). Paradigms, methods and knowledge. In G. MacNaughton, S. A.

Rolfe and S. Siraj-Blatchford (Eds), Doing early childhood research.

International perspectives on theory and practise (pp. 31-55). Australia: Allen &

Unwin.

Hydon, C. (2007). A way of travelling: The environment and our code of ethics.

Every Child, 13(1), 7.

Jacobs, G., & Crowley, K. (2007). Play, projects and preschool standards.

Nurturing children’s sense of wonder and joy in learning. Thousand Oaks:

Corwin Press.

Jenkins, K. (2009). Linking theory to practice: Education for sustainability and

learning and teaching. In Littledyke, M., Taylor, N., and Eames, C. Education

for Sustainability in the Primary Curriculum. A guide for teachers (pp. 29-38).

South Yarra: Palgrave macmillan.


Johansson, E. (2009). The preschool child of today – The world citizen of

tomorrow? International Journal of Early Childhood, 41(2), 79-95.

Johnson, R. (1999). Colonialism and cargo cults in early childhood education: does

Reggio Emilia really exist? Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 1(1), 61-

78.

Katz, L. G. (1997). A developmental approach to assessment of young children.

(publication funded by Office of Educational Research and Improvement, US

Dept of Educ, contract no DERR93002007) (ERIC Digest, Reproduction Service

No. ED407172).

Katz, L. G., & Chard, S. (1996). The contribution of documentation to the quality of

early childhood education. ERIC Digest. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service

No. ED393608) www.eric.ed.gov

Katz, L. G., & Chard, S. (1998). Issues in selecting topics for projects. ERIC

Digest. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED424031)

www.eric.ed.gov

Katz, L G., & Chard, S. C. (2000), Engaging Children’s Minds: The project

approach. 2nd ed. Stamford, CT: Ablex.

Kemmis, S. (2009). Action research as a practice-based practise. Educational

Action Research, 17(3), 463-474.

Kinsella, R. (2007). Greening services: Practical sustainability. Research in

Practice Series. ACT: Early Childhood Australia.

Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing

experiential learning in higher education. Academy of management learning and

education, 4(2), 193-212.


Lang, J. (2005). Let’s rethink curriculum design. Education Quarterly, Autumn.

Retrieved April 13, 2007, from

http://www.curriculum.edu.au/eq/summer2005/article2.html

Langford, R. (2010). Critiquing child-centred pedagogy to bring children and early

childhood educators into the centre of a democratic pedagogy. Contemporary

Issues in Early Childhood, 11(1), 113-127.

Littledyke, R., & McCrea, N. (2009). Starting sustainability early: Young children

exploring people and places. In M. Littledyke, N. Taylor, & Eames, C. (Eds.)

Education for sustainability in the primary curriculum. A guide for teachers (pp.

39-56). South Yarra: Palgrave MacMillan.

Locke, L. F., Silverman, S. J., & Wyrick Spirduso (2004). Reading and

understanding research (2nd ed.), Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Louv, R. (2006). Last child in the woods. Saving our children from nature-deficit

disorder. Chapel Hill: Algonquin books.

Lowe, I. (2007). Climate change and our children’s future. Every Child, 13(1), 4.

Mackey, G., & Vaealiki, S. (2011). Thinking of children: Democratic approaches

with young children in research. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36(2),

82-86.

MacLean, M. S., & Mohr, M. M. (1999). Teacher-researchers at work. Berkeley:

The National Writing Project.

MacNaughton, G. (2003). Shaping early childhood learners, curriculum and

contexts. Berkshire, England: Open University Press.

MacNaughton, G., & Hughes, P. (2009). Doing action research in early childhood

studies. A step by step guide. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.


MacNaughton, G., Rolfe, S. A., & Siraj-Blatchford, I. S. (2001). Doing early

childhood research. International perspectives on theory and practise. Australia:

Allen & Unwin.

MacNaughton, G., & Williams, G. (2009). Techniques for teaching young children.

Choices in theory and practice. 3rd ed. Frenchs Forest NSW: Pearson Prentice

Hall.

Malaguzzi, L. (1993). For an education based on relationships. Young Children,

November 1993, 9-12.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research. 3rd ed.

Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

McAninch, A. C. (2000). Continuity and purpose in the design of meaningful

project work. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 2(1), Retrieved

September 13, 2005, from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v2n1/mcaninch.html

McLaren, P. (2003). Life in schools. An introduction to critical pedagogy in the

foundations of education. 4th ed. Boston: Pearson Education.

McLaren, P., & Kincheloe, J. (2007). Critical pedagogy: where are we now?

New York: Peter Lang.

McMichael, A. J. (2006a). Population health as a primary criterion of sustainability.

EcoHealth, 3, 182-186.

McMichael, A. J. (2006b). Population health as the ‘bottom line’ of sustainability:

a contemporary challenge for public health researchers. European Journal of

Public Health, 16(6), 579-585.

McMichael, A. J., Butler, C. D., & Folke, C. (2003). New visions for addressing

sustainability. Science 302(5652), 1919-1920.


McNichol, H., Davis, J. M., & O’Brien, K. R. (2001). An ecological footprint for an

early learning centre: identifying opportunities for early childhood sustainability

education through interdisciplinary research. Environmental Education

Research, 1-16

McNiff, J. & Whitehead, J. (2009). You and your action research project. 3rd ed.

EBook: Routledge.

McNiff, J., Lomax, P., & Whitehead, J. (2003). You and your action research

project. 2nd ed. London: Routledge Falmer.

Metzger, S. (2007). We’re Going on a Nature Hunt. New York: Scholastic.

Meyers, R. B. (2006). Environmental learning: reflections on practice, research and

theory. Environmental Education Research, 12(3), 459-470.

Millikan, J. (2003). Reflections. Reggio Emilia principles within Australian

contexts. Castle Hill, NSW: Pademelon Press.

Millikan, J. (2001). Rejoicing in subjectivity. Proceedings of the 6th Unpacking

Conference, July 16-17, 2001, University of New South Wales: Institute of Early

Childhood, 5-23. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED470307)

Mills, G. (2003). Action research. A guide for the teacher researcher. 2nd ed.

Ohio: Merrill Prentice Hall

Morrison, G. S. (2007). Early childhood education today. 10th ed. New Jersey:

Merrill Prentice Hall.

Murdoch, K., & Le Mescam, N. (2006). Negotiating the curriculum with students:

A conversation worth having. Education Quarterly, Autumn, Retrieved January

14, 2007, from http://www.1.curriculum.edu.au/eq/2006autumn/article2.php


Myers Jr, O., E., Saunders, C. D., & Garrett, E. (2004). What do children think

animals need? Developmental trends. Environmental Education Research, 10(4),

545-562.

National Association for the Education of Young Children. Developmentally

appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth

through age 8, Retrieved January 10, 2008, from

http://www.naeyc.org/about/positions/pdf/PSDAP.PDF

New, R. (1998). Reggio Emilia’s commitment to children and community: a

reconceptualization of quality and DAP. Early Years, 18(2), 11-19.

New, R. (1999). What should children learn? Early Childhood Research and

Practice, 1(2), Retrieved January 7, 2006, from

http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v1n2/new.html

New South Wales Department of Education & Training (2010). Action Research in

Education. Guidelines. State of New South Wales, Department of Education &

Training

North American Association for Environmental Education (2010). Early Childhood

Environmental Programs: Guidelines for Excellence. NAAEE: Washington.

NSW Environment Protection Authority (2003). Patches of green. A review of

early childhood environmental education. NSW Environment Protection

Authority: Sydney.

OECD (2006). Starting strong 11: Early childhood education and care. Retrieved

April 11, 2010, from

http://www.oecd.org/document/63/0,3343,en_2649_39263231_37416703_1_1_1

_1,00.html


Page, J. (2000). Reframing the early childhood curriculum: educational imperatives

for the future. London: Routledge Farmer.

Parsons, R. D., & Brown, K. S. (2002). Teacher as reflective practitioner and action

researcher. Australia: Wadsworth.

Piaget, J. (1951). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. London: Routledge.

Pramling Samuelsson, I., & Kaga, Y. (2008). Introduction. In Pramling Samuelsson

and Y. Kaga (Eds.), The contribution of early childhood education to a

sustainable society (pp. 9). Paris: UNESCO.

Provenzo, Jr, & Eugene, F. (2008). Kindergarten History of Kindergarten.

Encyclopedia of the Social and Cultural Foundations of Education. Thousand

Oaks, CA: SAGE, 458-60. Retrieved June 20, 2012 from http://sage-

ereference.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/view/foundations/n218.xml?rskey=BBA

vs6&result= 1&q=froebel

Queensland Studies Authority, Queensland Government. (2006). Early Years

Curriculum Guidelines. Retrieved July 28, 2012 from

http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/981.html

Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.), (2001). Handbook of action research. London:

SAGE.

Reece, J. H. (1995). Lester and Clyde. Running scared. Sydney: Scholastic.

Richards, L. (2005). Handling qualitative data. A practical guide. Thousand Oaks:

SAGE.

Robinson, L., and Vaealiki, S. (2010). Ethics and pedagogy at the heart of early

childhood education for sustainability. In J. Davis (Ed.), Young children and the

environment (pp. 154- 181). Sydney: Cambridge University Press.


Roe, M. (2007). Feeling ‘secrety’: children’s views on involvement in landscape

decisions. Environmental education research, 13(4), 467-485.

Ronnerman, K. (2003). Action research: Educational tools and the improvement of

practice. Educational Action Research, 11(1), 9-22.

Roopnarine, J. L., & Johnson, J. E. (2005). Approaches to early childhood

education. 4th ed. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Ronnerman, K. (2003). Action research: Educational tools and the improvement of

practice. Education Action Research, 11(1), 9-22.

Sandberg, A., & Arlemalm-Hagser, E. (2011). The Swedish National Curriculum:

Play and learning with fundamental values in focus. Australasian Journal of

Early Childhood, 36(1), 44-50.

Schuler, D. (2000). The project approach: Meeting the state standards. Early

Childhood Research and Practice, 2(1), Retrieved January 7, 2006, from

http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v2n1/schuler.html

Schwalbach, E. M. (2003). Value and validity in action research. A guidebook for

reflective practitioners. Lanham: The Scarecrow Press.

Seefeldt, D. (1998). Assessing young children. In C. Seefeldt, and A. Galper (Eds.),

Continuing Issues in Early Childhood Education (pp. 314-338). New Jersey:

Merrill.

Silverman, D., & Marvasti, A. (2008). Doing qualitative research. A

comprehensive guide. Los Angeles: SAGE publications.

Sloane, M. W. (2004). Tailoring your teaching with the Project Approach. Kappa

Delta Pi Record, 40(4), Retrieved July 28, 2012, from

http://search.proquest.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/docview/232053266


Soler, J., & Miller, L. (2003). The struggle for early childhood curricula: A

comparison of the English Foundation Stage Curriculum, Te Whariki and

Reggio Emilia. International Journal of Early Years Education, 11(1), 57-67.

Spodek, B., & Saracho, O. N. (2003). “On the shoulders of giants”: Exploring the

traditions of early childhood education. Early Childhood Education, 31(1), 3-10.

Stake, R. (2003). Case studies in Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.),

Strategies of qualitative inquiry. 2nd ed., (pp, 134-164). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Stake, R. (2005). Qualitative case studies in Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. 3rd ed., (pp. 443-466)

Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Starfall Education. (2002-2012). Earth Day (interactive web game). Retrieved July

28, 2012 from http://www.starfall.com/n/holiday/earthday/play.htm?f

Sterling, S. (2001). Sustainable education. Re-visioning learning and change.

Bristol: Green books.

Stern, N. (2008). Stern Review: The economics of climate change. Retrieved

January 24, 2008, from http://www.hm-

treasury.gov.uk/media/9/9/CLOSED_SHORT_executive_summary.pdf

Stevenson, R. B. (2007). Schooling and environmental/sustainability education:

From discourses of policy and practice to discourses of professional learning.

Environmental Education Research, 13(2), 265-285.

Stewart, J. (1990). The Rainforest Experience (puppet show). Retrieved October 10,

2012 from http://www.evergreenchildrenstheatre.com.au/

Strife, S. J. (2012). Children’s Environmental Concerns: Expressing Ecophobia.

The Journal of Environmental Education, 43(1), 37-54.


Stringer, E. T. (1999). Action research: A handbook for practitioners. 2nd ed.

Newbury Park: SAGE.

Sudhakara Reddy, B. & Assenza, G. B. (2009). The Great Climate Debate. Energy

Policy, 37(8), 2997-3008.

Sung, K. (2007). Glocalizing critical pedagogy: a case of english language teaching

in Korea. In P. McLaren and J. Kincheloe. (Eds.), Critical pedagogy: where are

we now? New York: Peter Lang.

The Centre for Environment and Sustainability. (2008). The Gothenburg

Recommendations on Education for Sustainable Development. Sweden: The

Centre for Environment and Sustainability.

Theobald, M. (2009). Participation and social order in the playground (unpublished

thesis). Retrieved May 13, 2010, from

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/29618/1/Maryanne_Theobald_Thesis.pdf

Theobald, M., Danby, S. and Ailwood, J. (2011). Child participation in the early

years. Challenges for education. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood,

36(3), 19- 26.

Tilbury, D., & Wortman, D. (2004). Engaging people in sustainability. UICN:UK

Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). Qualitative validity. Retrieved March 28, 2010,

from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/qualval.php

United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (2007). Framing

sustainable development. The Brundtland Report – 20 years on. Retrieved April

11, 2010 from

http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/csd15/media/backgrounder_brundtland.pdf

UN Department of Economic & Social Affairs. (2009). Division for Sustainable

Development. Retrieved June 20, 2012 from http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/


UNDP. (2008). Human Development Report 2007/2008. Fighting climate change:

Human solidarity in a divided world. Retrieved December 22, 2009, from

http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2007-2008/

UNDP. (2012). A World of Development Experience. Retrieved June 20, 2012,

from http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/operations/about_us/

UNEP. (nd) Initial assessment of sustainability performance and opportunities.

Retrieved April, 11, 2010, from

http://www.unemg.org/sustainableun/Portals/41/Documents/MeetingsDocs/IMG/

CNUN/SUN initialQuestionnaire.pdf

UNEP. (2006). Global Environment Outlook 4 – Environment for Development.

Retrieved September 17, 2008, from http://www.un-

ngls.org/site/article.php3?id_article=364.

UNEP. (2011). Keeping Track of our Changing Environment. From Rio to Rio

+20 (1992-2- 12). Retrieved February 3, 2012, from

http://unep.org/geo/pdfs/Keeping_Trackpdf.

UNESCO. (1977). Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education.

Retrieved March 11, 2012, from

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0003/000327/032763eo.pdf

UNESCO. (1977). The Tbilisi Declaration. Retrieved June 20, 2012, from

http://www.gdrc. org/uem/ee/tbilisi.html

UNESCO. (2002). Sustainable development. Retrieved July 4, 2008, from

http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-

URL_ID=4024&URL_DO+DO_TOPIC&URL_SE...


UNESCO. (2005) Education for sustainable development (2005-2014). Retrieved

November 11, 2008, from http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-

URL_ID=27234&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

UNESCO (2005). Four Dimensions of Sustainable Development. Retrieved April

25, 2012, from

http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/mods/theme_a/popups/mod04t01s03.html

UNESCO (2005). Teaching and learning for a sustainable future. Retrieved April

26, 2010, from

http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/TLSF/theme_a/uncofrm_a.htm

UNESCO. (2008). UNESCO and global climate change. Retrieved November 11,

2008, from http://portal.unesco.org/science/en/ev.php-

URL_ID=6734&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

UNESCO. (2008). The contribution of early childhood education to a sustainable

society. UNESCO: Paris.

UNESCO. (2008). The Gothenburg Recommendations. Retrieved April 2, 2012,

from http://desd.org/Gothenburgl%20Recommendations.pdf

UNESCO. (2012). Rio+20 side event. Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable

Development. Retrieved June 20, 2012, from h

ttp://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/events/rio20/?tx_browser_pi1%5BshowUid

%5D=6304 &cHash=e94d801926

UNFCCC. (2008). Kyoto Protocol. Retrieved January 24, 2008, from

http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php

UN News Centre (2012). UN chief outlines five-year action plan to build ‘the future

we want’. Retrieved January 26, 2012, from UN

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=41034&Cv=Ki-moon&cr1=


Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). Educational psychology. Florida: St. Lucie Press.

Walker, K. (2007). Play matters. Engaging children in learning: The Australian

developmental curriculum. A play and project based philosophy. Camberwell:

ACER Press.

Walsh, G., & Gardner, J. (2005). Assessing the quality of early years learning

environments. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 7(1), Retrieved January

23, 2006, from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v7n1/walsh.html

Watters, J. J., & Diezmann, C. M. (1998). “This is nothing like school”: Discourse

and the social environment as key components in learning science. Early

Childhood Development and Care, 140, 73-84.

Whitehead, J. & McNiff, J. (2006). Action Research: Living Theory. London:

SAGE.

Wilks, A. Dr. (2002). A strength focus: Supporting children’s learning.

Proceedings of the ninth international learning conference, July 16-20, 2002,

Beijing, China. Retrieved June 12, 2006, from www.office-for-

children.vic.gov.au/.../fid/-

E96FF4BD437803CFCA2570D600829D36/$file/session7b_wilks.pdf

Wilson, R. (2008). Nature and young children. New York: Routledge.

Wood, E. (2004). Developing a pedagogy of play. Early Childhood Education.

Society and Culture. Angela Anning, Joy Cullen & Marilyn Fleer (editors).

London: SAGE.

Wright, S. (2010). Understanding Creativity in Early Childhood: Meaning-making

and children’s drawings. Los Angeles: SAGE.

Young, T. (2007). Why do young children need to know about climate change?

Voice, 3(3), 3.

Appendices 208 Sharon Stuhmcke EdD Thesis 2012

APPENDICES

A Guidelines for Consulting with Young Children

B Building Waterfalls: Shared understandings

C Early Childhood Australia’s Code of Ethics related to research

D Teacher-researcher’s conference participation

E Roger Hart’s Ladder of Young People’s Participation

F Teacher-researcher’s ethics statement

G Letter of permission for parents of participants and child consent

H Kindergarten handbook excerpt

I August 20120 ewsletter and letter to families

J Documentation of the children’s project

K Class book publication


Appendix A

Guidelines for Consulting with Young Children

Early Childhood Australia believes that:

1. Children must be consulted.

The process by which they are consulted must reflect commitment to maintain the dignity and welfare of children and their

families. All those consulting with children must adhere to the accepted guidelines of professional and ethical practice.

Professional and ethical practice includes consideration of each situation with reference to context, time, environment,

acknowledgment of key players and their values, legal aspects, professional principles and ethical principles.

2. Children's views must be valued and treated with respect.

Due consideration must always be given in any situation where a child expresses themselves. In the process of consultation and

consequent representation these views and a child's perspective is to be valued.

3. The privacy of all children must be respected at all times.

Information collected in the process of consultation must not be used inappropriately. While confidentiality can never be

absolute, information must be treated in a professional, legal and ethical way.

4. Best practice is crucial.

When interacting with young children is based on sound knowledge, research and theories in early childhood.

5. Any adults interacting with children in a professional or personal role should adhere to principles that

reflect respect for children's rights.

Policy principles

• The underlying principles related to this policy reflect adherence and commitment to the United Nations

Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Early Childhood Australia Code of Ethics.

• Children are active in constructing their understanding of their world.

• Children’s autonomy and initiative must be respected.

• Children must be empowered to express their views and to expect that their views will be taken into

account.


• It is essential that young children are consulted in matter that affect them. This consultation may be

specific to individual situations or may involve representative group to inform more general practices.

• From birth a child is capable of expressing views and is able to make them known, especially to those

attuned to interacting with young children.

• At times young children are not able to speak for themselves in forums/situations which may have an

impact on their future experiences. In these situations groups and individuals who represent young children must

have the opportunity to speak for them. In order to be a voice for children, advocates must consult with children

and their families.

• Every effort must be made to ensure that it is the voice of young children that is heard. Adults must

acknowledge the children's perspective in any representation they make on their behalf. The opinions of young

children and representation of their experiences must be sought out. When interpreted or presented to others this

information should maintain the truth as viewed by the children consulted. A child's opinion must be valued for its

validity to their perspective.

• Advocates for children must be authentic representatives who value and honor individuality and diversity.

Any interpretation of data gathered from consultation with children must be done based on a sound understanding

of contemporary Early Childhood theory.

• Consent must be obtained from children and their families in order to include them in any process of data

gathering. The purpose of the consultation must be made clear to the children and their families. Children are to

have any process they are involved in explained to them at a level, which they can understand.

• Children must not be placed in any situation or environment that presents a threat to their health or

wellbeing. In consulting with children adults must consider the children's health and wellbeing at all times.

• Children must not be intimidated or interrogated in any way and they must be given sufficient time to

respond.

• No form of deception should be involved in consulting with children. Children must be respected. Adults

must be honest at all times when consulting with children.

• Parents, family members, early childhood professionals, researchers and advocacy groups can be

advocates for children. They must consult children and their families to be effective advocates. They have the

responsibility of making decisions and acting in ways that promote and protect the rights of young children. (Rodd,

1998)

Implementation strategies

• The specialist early childhood knowledge or expertise of any adult who provides support during any

consultation with children needs to be assessed. The context and needs of a child will influence this assessment.

For example, knowledge of pediatric health may be important in one situation. In another situation a good

understanding of cognitive and social development of young children may be essential.


• Someone with specialist early childhood knowledge acting as an advocate for the child should always be

present when consultations are being conducted with children if their family members cannot be present.

• When consulting with children individual family culture must be considered.

• Questions addressed to children must be age/stage appropriate in style, content, complexity and length.

• When questioning children, it is important that those involved have an understanding of how children

recall information.

• Consideration must be given to how much questioning needs to occur to obtain relevant information.

• Environments in which any consultation takes place must be assessed as being appropriate and

authentic for the children and families involved.

• Children need to be provided with sufficient appropriate information to express a meaningful opinion.

• Individualised planned communication of the purpose of any consultation must be developed to meet the

needs of a child in any particular situation.

• Support structures are put in place to ensure consulting with young children is inclusive of all children,

e.g. children with a language other than English; children with disabilities.

• Special consideration needs to be given to consulting with very young children, e.g. infants.

Background Material

Early Childhood Australia Code of Ethics

Greenwood A (1993). Children’s rights: the United Nations Convention on the rights of the child. AECA Resource

Book Series. Australian Early Childhood Association: Canberra

HREOC & UNICEF. A guide through the Convention.

Nyland B. (1999). The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Using a concept of rights as a basis

for practice. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 24(1), 914.

Rodd J. (1998). Leadership in Early Childhood. Second edition. Allen & Unwin: St Leonards, NSW

Schiller W (1989). “A Fair Go” for children: An early childhood perspective on the Convention on the Rights of the

Child. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 14(20), 1520.

Wiersma W (1995). Research methods on education: An introduction. Sixth edition. Allyn & Bacon: Needham

Heights, Massachusetts.


Appendix B

Building Waterfalls (2011) – C&K’s governing curriculum document for all C&K

kindergartens

Shared Understandings (The four ‘currents of thought’)

Connecting

• We are connected to family and community and country

• We connect with and build upon what we know

• We are connected to natural and sustainable world

Enlarging

• We are valued and treated with equity, dignity and respect

• We feel safe, nurtured and cared for

• We share satisfying interactions and relationships

Listening

• We are open and sensitive to new possibilities and perspectives

• We express, share and honour values, beliefs and traditions

• We contribute to a democratic learning environment

Exploring

• We are unique, rich in ideas, experiences and knowledge

• We are competent and capable learners, thinkers and inquirers

• We create, represent and communicate our understanding in many ways

(C and K, 2011, p.11)


Appendix C

Statement about ethical conduct pertaining to research by early childhood educators,

as specified by Early Childhood Australia’s Code of Ethics:

1. Recognise that research includes my routine documentation and

investigations of children’s learning and development, as well as more formal

research projects undertaken with and by external bodies.

2. Be responsive to children’s participation in research, negotiating their

involvement taking account of matters such as safety, fatigue, privacy and their

interest.

3. Support research to strengthen and expand the knowledge base of early

childhood, and where possible, initiate, contribute to, facilitate and disseminate such

research.

4. Make every effort to understand the purpose and value of proposed research

projects and make informed decisions as to the participation of myself, colleagues,

children, families and communities.

5. Ensure research in which I am involved meets standard ethical procedures

including informed consent, opportunity to withdraw and confidentiality.

6. Ensure that images of children and other data are only collected with

informed consent and are stored and utilised according to legislative and policy

requirements.

7. Represent the findings of all research accurately.

(Early Childhood Australia’s Code of Ethics, 2006, p.4)


Appendix D

1) Participation in C&K Annual Conference (2008), excerpt from Conference

program:

2) Participation in C&K Annual Conference (2011), excerpt from Conference

program:

Living in a child’s world C&K Conference Brisbane 2011

21 - 22 May 2011, Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre

Sharon Stuhmcke Are young children aware of environmental sustainability issues? This session will focus on the experiences, thoughts, ideas and concerns children from a Brisbane kindergarten expressed during their participation in an environmental project. The session includes a power-point and visuals which support early childhood education for sustainability as a topical and appropriate child-interest. The data also serves to reflect the need to employ teaching and learning approaches that match the contemporary sustainability agenda.


Appendix E


Appendix F

Parent Information Letter for QUT Research Project

Young Children as Change Agents for Environmental Sustainability:

An Action Research Case Study in a Kindergarten

Research Team Contacts

Principal Supervisor –

Dr Julie M. Davis Senior Lecturer, School of Early Childhood

Kelvin Grove Campus, QUT Brisbane Australia

Ph: +61 7 3138 3808

Fax: +61 7 3138 3989 Email: [email protected]

Associate Supervisor -

Ass Pr Lisa Ehrich Queensland University of Technology

Victoria Park Road Kelvin Grove Qld 4059

Phone: 3138 3038

Fax: 3138 8265 Email:

[email protected]

Dear Parents,

I am writing to you about my research project entitled, Children as Change Agents for Environmental

Sustainability: An Action Research Case Study in a Kindergarten. This project is being undertaken as

part of my doctoral research program at Queensland University of Technology (QUT). My principal

supervisor is Dr Julie Davis from the School of Early Childhood and my associate supervisor is

Associate Professor Lisa Ehrich from the School of Learning and Professional Studies. The purpose of

this study is to investigate children’s participation in education for sustainability within a

kindergarten setting. More specifically, this study examines how young children are involved in

decision-making and enacting change related to environmental sustainability issues within their

kindergarten context. This study takes the view that children are competent decision-makers and

participation in education for environmental sustainability needs to begin in early childhood. This

study responds to calls from the sustainability field and curriculum documents to approach

education for sustainability with innovative teaching and learning approaches, placing children at

the forefront of decision-making and action-taking in their local environments.

This study involves taking observations, photographs, slide-shows, documenting learning

experiences and hand-written recording children’s conversations in relation to their participation in

education for sustainability experiences within the kindergarten. The children are familiar with

these practices already as we use these forms of record-keeping as a normal part of the

kindergarten curriculum. The observations, photographs, slide-shows, documentation of learning

and records of children’s talk will be used for educational and research purposes only. On request

faces can be blurred on photographs and slide-shows. The identity of the kindergarten, staff, other

participants and children will remain anonymous in all written published work. All information will

be stored on a password protected QUT network drive or in locked filing cabinets.

I have experience working and talking with young children in my roles as an early childhood

teacher/director and early primary teacher. I am the holder of a “positive blue card” issued from the

Commission for Children, Young People and Child Guardian. I am a currently registered teacher in

Queensland with the Queensland College of Teachers. There are no risks beyond normal day-to-day

participation in the kindergarten program. This research is significant as the kindergarten’s

involvement in this study may benefit teachers, parents and children in early childhood educational

Doctoral Candidate – Mrs Sharon Stuhmcke

Queensland University

of Technology

Ph: 0422 495 895 Email:

[email protected]


settings, by providing insights regarding the participation of young children in education for

environmental sustainability in a kindergarten.

Thank you for taking the time to consider this proposal. Please contact me, or my supervisors, if you

have any further questions or concerns. A consent form is attached for you to complete, indicating

your agreement.

QUT is committed to researcher integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects. However, if you

do have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the project you may contact the QUT

Research Ethics Unit on +61 7 3138 5123 or email [email protected]. The Research Ethics Unit is

not connected with the research project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern in an impartial

manner.

Yours faithfully,

Sharon Stuhmcke

M. Ed (EC), B. Tec (EC), ADCC


Appendix G

PARENT AND CHILD CONSENT FORM for QUT RESEARCH PROJECT

Young Children as Change Agents for Sustainability: An Action Research Case Study

in a Kindergarten

Research Team Contacts

Principal Supervisor - Associate Professor Julie M. Davis

Senior Lecturer, School of Early Childhood Kelvin Grove Campus, QUT

Brisbane Australia Ph: +61 7 3138 3808 Fax: +61 7 3138 3989 Email: [email protected]

Doctoral Candidate – Mrs Sharon Stuhmcke

Queensland University of Technology Ph: 0422 495 895

Email: [email protected]

Associate Supervisor - Associate Professor Lisa Ehrich

Queensland University of Technology Victoria Park Road Kelvin Grove Qld 4059

Phone: 3138 3038 Fax: 3138 8265 Email: [email protected]

Statement of Consent

By signing below, you are indicating that you:

• have read and understood the information document regarding this project

• have had any questions answered to your satisfaction

• understand that if you have any additional questions you can contact the research team

• understand that you are free to withdraw at any time, without comment or penalty

• understand that you can contact the Research Ethics Unit on +61 7 3138 5123 or email

[email protected] if you have concerns about the ethical conduct of the project

• for projects involving minors: have discussed the project with your child and their

requirements if participating

• understand that the project will include observations, photographs, documentation of

project work and hand-written records of child conversation that occurs as the natural

part of the normal kindergarten program

• agree to participate in the project

Name

Signature

Date / /

Statement of Child Consent

Your parent or guardian has given their permission for you to be involved in

this research project.

This form is to seek your agreement to be involved.

By marking the ‘smiling face’ below, you are indicating that the project has been discussed with

you and you agree to participate in the project. By marking the ‘non-smiling face’ below, you

are indicating that you do not wish to participate.


Media Release Promotions

From time to time, we may like to promote our research to the general public

through, for example, newspaper articles. Would you be willing to be contacted by

QUT Media and Communications for possible inclusion in such stories? By ticking

this box, it only means you are choosing to be contacted – you can still decide at the

time not to be involved in any promotions.

Yes, you may contact me about inclusion in promotions

No, I do not wish to be contacted about inclusion in promotions

Please return this sheet to the investigator.


Appendix H

Kindergarten handbook excerpt p.43

Environment

This Centre actively promotes education for the environment. We recognise that learning about the environment begins in early childhood. Where possible, staff model sustainable practices. Children are also encouraged to participate in learning about and engage in, sustainable practices as the state of the environment will indeed impact on their lives as well as those of future generations. Children are encouraged to participate in caring for and learning about the various plants, trees and creatures found in the playground. Children are encouraged to be ‘water-conscious’ in their play, to recycle where appropriate and to bring ‘litter free’ lunches. To promote this learning, children’s equipment includes materials such as - watering cans, magnifying glasses, books and posters about the environment. This Centre regularly includes articles and features about sustainability and environmental education in our monthly newsletters and parent information material.


Appendix I

Letter to parents about the playground project

Dear Families,

This term we would like to start work on some environmental projects at the Kindy.

We are looking for some volunteers to oversee our vegie patch and also the

composting.

The children have also expressed interest in having a possum box placed in the

playground.

The other major outdoor project we would like to begin in re-vamping our

playground area. As a staff we have been talking about various ideas and

possibilities including a sensory pathway. Other ideas have included a ‘ball-run’, a

‘wobbly’ bridge with under-planting, garden statues to represent the native animals

found in our local area.

We are looking for other inspiring ideas, we are putting up an ‘IDEAS BOARD’ for

you to add your thoughts and/or photos of the different possibilities we could

investigate. Of course we want the children to contribute, they could draw or you

could write down their words about what they might like.

We are keen to utilise natural materials so that we can use this project to heighten

the children’s awareness of environmental topics and issues.

(name removed for confidentiality purposes) is a landscape architect and has offered

to help us put our ideas together in a plan!


Excerpt from August Newsletter, 2010

August Newsletter

Curriculum

We have started out this week reading ‘We’re going on a nature hunt’, this was

prompted by interest in Trina’s rainforest collage. The children are following this

interest by conducting their own nature hunts in the playground. They have

decided to use magnifying glasses and to take photographs rather than to pick the

leaves off the bushes or to collect the insects they find. Some interesting

discussions are occurring about how we can care for our environment.

The Kindy playground

This interest in the natural elements in our playground has been timely! We are

currently encouraging everyone to contribute to our IDEAS BOARD – we’d love to

see your ideas too!

The children have been drawing and collaging some of their ideas which include

bridges, water and lots of birds. Their work has been added to our Ideas Board. If

your child mentions anything about our playground ideas while at home please be

sure to add these as well.


Appendix J

Documentation of the ‘children’s environment project’

The rainforest project by the Blue Group

Our interest in rainforests developed after Trina made an interesting ‘rainforest’

collage and asked Mrs S to write “I am thinking about the rainforest” on her work.

We decided we all wanted to think about the rainforest...

We began exploring this interest by reading ‘We’re going on a nature hunt’.

We noticed that the children in the story didn’t touch the animals or plants.

Then we decided that we wanted to go on our own nature hunt in the playground...

so we did... when we went on our ‘nature hunt’ we decided to collect some natural

items but someone said ‘…you can’t take living things off the trees or put the bugs in

containers because then they all die…’ We decided only to pick up leaves, bark and

stones that were already on the ground. We used these natural items in our play and

for craft.

We also added natural objects to the classroom like shells.

To help us notice the details of various environments Mrs S organised a spotlight

game on the Smart-board. We could only see a small piece of different

environments. This helped us to predict what king of environment the picture might

be. We then played this game with old calendar pictures and we used magnifying

glasses outside. These activities also helped us notice small details. We found that

grass is not all the same green and that bark on trees is not just the same brown.

The teachers added books with an environmental focus to the book corner and

posters around the room.

We made a list about what we wanted to learn...

Week 2

It is book week this week. We decided to look at Jeannie Baker’s books because

they have lots of environment pictures in them.

We also decided to start making a waterfall and rainforest environment - this was on

our list from last week.


We covered the back board with yellow and green spray painting that we had kept

from last week. Then we started by using different sized boxes to create the

waterfall shape. We covered the boxes with white paper and then chose colours to

paint. We looked at rainforest pictures to help us decide about colours.

Mackenzie firstly wanted blue, then she went to check the waterfall photo and came

back saying ‘…we need yellow for the sun’s reflection and we need white for the

bubbly bits...’

Then it was decided that the water coming down the waterfall needed a lake at the

bottom, so that was made next.

The following day we kept working...

The children decided they needed mountains on either side of the waterfall so they

set about looking at mountain pictures then drawing the mountain shapes onto the

yellow/green backdrop.

Then they painted the mountains.

Week 3

This week we focused on stories about protecting the environment, conserving water

and recycling.

We made some decisions including using only small containers to get water for

sand-play because we don’t want to waste water.

We also learnt about recycling by playing ‘The Earth’ game on the starfall website.

This taught us about the recycling symbol and recycling bins. We learnt that

recycling means things are used again and less rubbish goes into landfill. We

already have ‘litter-less lunches’ but we decided to recycle our yoghurt containers

and use them as paint-pots so they weren’t going in the rubbish.

Week 4

We read a special story called ‘Lester and Clyde’ today - it taught us about how

important clean environments are for animals.


One of the posters showing documentation of the ‘children’s environment project’

Week 5

The children continued to add to their rainforest and waterfall environment. Rocks

were collected from outside and added to the environment. The children made trees

and burrows. Some burrows were made near the pond, these were for the

platypuses. Some burrows were made at the foot of the mountain. These were for

the echidnas and wombats. The children moved the trees around and discussed the

need for the animals to be able to ‘camouflage’ in order to stay safe. W suggested

that we needed a ‘rainforest canopy’ too. We made threadings to hang down. We

added green and yellow paper “so we couldn’t see the sun” and we added cellophane

to the windows to help create the ‘rainforest’ effect.

We also learnt about the life-cycle of the butterfly because we knew that butterflies

can be found in the rainforest.

As a ‘synthesising’ activity (bringing our learning together) we enjoyed a ‘rainforest’

puppet show. This show had strong environmental and conservation messages.


Week 6

Although we still have our ‘rainforest and waterfall’ environment in the classroom

we decided to conclude this project by making a booklet that would remind us about

our decisions about caring for the environment.

To make this book we reflected on our project by looking at the photos, revisiting

our rainforest model, exploring the books we had used and by lots of class

discussions and by making lists about what we think is important.

We know by acting in ways that protect our environment we are helping the

Earth.


Appendix K

Class book publication

What we do for our environment (Title)

By the Blue Group

Page 1

We look after animals.

We make places for animals to live.

You can put possum boxes in the trees.

We don’t scare animals and we are quiet.

Page 2

We don’t cut down our trees because we don’t want animals to die and trees give us

oxygen. People and animals need oxygen.

We don’t cut down trees because the birds have nests there and their food is in the

trees too.

We let our trees grow high.

Page 3

We don’t let pets kill the animals.

We keep pet birds in cages but we don’t put catbirds and scrub turkeys in cages.


Page 4

We can teach people “no more throwing rubbish on the world” and “roll up paper so

it doesn’t get wasted”, like in ‘Michael Recycle’.

Page 5

We put our rubbish in the bins.

We don’t bring rubbish in our lunch box.

Page 6

We keep the playground clean so the animals don’t eat rubbish and die... and we

don’t leave broken glass because the animals might get hurt.

The animals come back when there is no rubbish... that’s why we put rubbish in the

buckets with the ‘right’ picture (plastic, glass and paper recycling bins).

Page 7

We look at the plants and animals but we don’t touch... we just look... like with

binoculars or magnifying glasses.

Page 8

We re-cycle our rubbish so it can be used again. You look for the re-cycling picture

in the shops and that tells you something has been used again. Recycling bins are

special because you can make new stuff out of it.

We wash containers and use them again... like the ones for yoghurt.

Then they can be new again.

Page 9

We use water carefully so it doesn’t get wasted. We have rules for water like not

using too much in the sandpit.

We keep water clean so that baby animals can live and we can see them.