Understanding children’s object choice and play in an outdoor setting: the embedded learning and meaning of playing with sticks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study employed a phenomenographic, Mosaic, case study approach to understanding young children’s outdoor learning by analysing a select group of young children’s engagement with their chosen activities in an outdoor setting. This group was comprised of 20 Grade 1 students (5 to 7 years) at a public school in Vancouver, British Columbia. The students’ learning was investigated through a Personal Construct theoretical framework. The data collected included notes based on both video recordings made by the children and detailed researcher observations including interviews and interactions with the children. \nUse of sticks was observed to be the most important element in the students’ chosen outdoor activities. Thus, the students’ engagement with sticks by creating/improvising activities in an urban forest setting can be described as stick-based, physical, and tactile outdoor learning. In this way, the outdoor activities that prominently feature the use of sticks can become important to the development of children’s engagement with environmental education and science learning. \nTherefore, it can be concluded from the study’s outcomes that: 1) effective childhood outdoor curriculum and pedagogy should include the children’s chosen outdoor activities and emphasize physical and tactile interactions with natural items; 2) young children’s chosen outdoor activities can be considered cultural and social in nature, which may promote children’s inclusion and feelings of competence in the culture of environmental education and school science; 3) the incorporation of children’s chosen outdoor activities in childhood curriculum and pedagogy may offer an opportunity to better understand how children’s agency affects environmental education and science learning within local and natural settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".