THE JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION, 44(3), 195–213, 2013

Copyright 
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0095-8964 print/1940–1892 online
DOI: 10.1080/00958964.2012.751892

Toward a Model for Early Childhood Environmental

Education: Foregrounding, Developing, and Connecting
Knowledge Through Play-Based Learning
Amy Cutter-Mackenzie
Southern Cross University, Lismore, New South Wales, Australia

Susan Edwards
Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Environmental education represents a growing area of interest in early childhood education, espe-
cially since the inclusion of environmental principles and practices in the Australian Early Years
Learning Framework. Traditionally, these two fields of education have been characterized by diverse
pedagogical emphases. This article considers how teachers in particular see different types of ped-
agogical play, such as open-ended play, modeled play, and purposefully framed play as providing
opportunities for young children and teachers to develop knowledge through experiences about en-
vironmental education in early childhood settings. As a result of findings based on our qualitative
research study involving early childhood teachers and children, an emerging model for thinking about
environmental education in early childhood is proposed as a way of integrating these pedagogical
emphases traditionally associated with environmental and early childhood education. Avenues for
future research associated with this model are also identified.
Keywords early childhood environmental education, knowledge, play-based learning, teachers,
teaching

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION IN THE EARLY YEARS

Environmental education is becoming an increasingly important learning area in early childhood

education (Pearson & Degotardi, 2009). This movement resonates with a wider acknowledgment
of, and appreciation for, the role of knowledge in early childhood education. Such trends can also
be seen in recent curriculum and policy developments in early childhood education (Stephen,
2010). In the case of environmental education, the development of environmental values has
tended to dominate practice not only in early childhood education but also in school education.
However, a knowledge-value-action gap has emerged in environmental education research, such
that knowledge1 is often treated as the lowest common dominator in the teaching and learning of
environmental education (Cutter-Mackenzie & Smith, 2003). As can now be traced over the past

Correspondence should be sent to Amy Cutter-Mackenzie, School of Education, Southern Cross University, Military
Road, Lismore, NSW 2480, Australia. E-mail: acutterm@scu.edu.au
196 EARLY CHILDHOOD ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

two decades (particularly in the case of school education), knowledge and beliefs/values do not
operate in isolation and the practice of environmental education requires a delicate pedagogical
balance of knowledge, values, and action in the experience of environmental education in early
childhood education (Cutter-Mackenzie, 2007).
Experience is a central tenant in the teaching and learning of environmental education from
early childhood through to adult education. Leopold (1949), a seminal ecological philosopher,
made the following observation some 70 years ago:

. . . I wonder whether the process ordinarily referred to as growing up is not actually a process
of growing down; whether experience, so much touted among adults as the things children lack, is
not actually a progressive dilution of the essentials by the trivialities of living. This much at least
is sure: my earliest impressions of wildlife and its pursuit retain a vivid sharpness of form, color,
and atmosphere that half a century of professional wildlife experience has failed to obliterate or to
improve upon. (Leopold, 1949, p. 120)

On one level Leopold’s observations reflect a deep romanticizing of experience, yet his writ-
ings also speak to an intimate acknowledgment of knowing and knowledge that develops in
childhood. It is important that young children’s learning in the area of environmental education
provides more than a series of experiences that do not connect with knowledge. This is because
experience alone does not necessarily lead to positive environmental dispositions and actions
(Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002) later in life. While the role of knowledge in environmental educa-
tion is important, this perspective has not necessarily informed existing work in the area of early
childhood environmental education, which has focused instead on examining how environmental
education is understood and positioned within early childhood education contexts (Davis, 2005,
2009; Elliott & Davis, 2009). This is important groundwork for the field as it provides a basis
for thinking about how and why environmental education is gradually finding space within the
early childhood curriculum as a learning (and content) area alongside more traditional areas such
as literacy and numeracy. As this work gains momentum, there has been a shift toward thinking
about how environmental education as a learning area might interface with existing approaches
to play-based early childhood curricula (Cutter-Mackenzie & Edwards, 2006; Edwards & Cutter-
Mackenzie, 2011). Such work is important because it relates to how a learning area of emerging
significance to the field aligns itself with the ideas, beliefs, and practices that characterize early
childhood education.
In our work we have been interested in the ways in which thinking about play-based pedagogies
connect with how knowledge associated with environmental education might be enacted in
early childhood settings. This has interested us because environmental education emphasizes the
importance of the relationship between experience, knowledge, and values as a basis for becoming
knowledgeable about the environment, and indeed the development of pro-environment values
and associated actions. On the other hand, there has been a strong philosophical and theoretical
commitment in early childhood education to valuing the role of experience in leading children
toward knowledge, over a more explicit engagement with knowledge per se. This has suggested
two particular approaches toward learning in the area of early childhood environmental education,
where on the one side experience, knowledge, and values are engaged to support learning, and
on the other, experience is said to lead toward learning (particularly where this is provided
through the provision of open-ended activity or play-based learning). These two approaches are
indicative of a potential pedagogical “gap” in which what is known about teaching and learning
 CUTTER-MACKENZIE AND EDWARDS 197

in environmental education may not connect with what is known about teaching and learning in
early childhood education and vice versa.
Our work is situated in relation to this pedagogical gap where we have sought to examine
the relationship between teaching, play and learning from early childhood teachers and young
children’s perspectives through a qualitative research study in 16 early childhood settings. Our
proposition was that a purposefully-framed approach to play, or what we have termed the purpose-
fully framed approach to play, will support children’s learning outcomes more so than other forms
of play. The subsequent findings of this study show how approaches to play-based learning might
be interfaced with understandings about environmental education to create a pedagogical model
for thinking about early childhood environmental education. We turn now to an examination of
the literature associated with play-based learning and pedagogy in early childhood education to
frame the way we have been thinking about play-based pedagogies.

PLAY-BASED LEARNING AND PEDAGOGY IN THE EARLY

CHILDHOOD CURRICULUM

Work in the area of play-based learning and pedagogy generally seeks to consider the ways in
which play is related to and/or used in early childhood education as a basis for pedagogy. Core to
research and discussion in this area is the way in which “play” is understood, positioned, or defined
in relation to pedagogy (Langford, 2010; Stephen, 2010). A historically important perspective
has been associated with the role of open-ended play as a basis for pedagogy. According to this
perspective, open-ended play is important for young children because it provides opportunities
for exploration and discovery, which are necessary for supporting learning (White et al., 2007).
In recent years, this way of thinking has been challenged by research examining the extent to
which young children are able to engage with and build knowledge through such play (Gibbons,
2007; Hedges & Cullen, 2005). Research has also suggested that this form of play relates to
particular cultural practices and understandings about learning that may not be common to the
experiences of all children (Brooker, 2010). Furthermore, research has increasingly demonstrated
the importance of adult interaction and engagement during play to support young children’s
learning. This research has included the development of important ideas such as the notion of
sustained-shared thinking (Siraj-Blatchford, 2007), co-constructing knowledge (Jordan 2009),
and the development of contextual inter-subjectivity (Fleer, 2010) between children and adults
during play to support learning. Emerging understandings about play-based learning therefore
increasingly reference the following ideas: (a) the importance of interactions and relationships
between children and teachers to support learning; (b) the ways in which play and play-based
learning are culturally and contextually mediated; and (c) the idea that play is neither value or
gender neutral, and that power relationships between children and teachers mean that it cannot
necessarily be considered “free.”
From this research and discourse is emerging a sense of what might constitute “pedagogical
play.” Pedagogical play involves considering many forms of play (and/or play activity) as possible
informants to the early childhood curriculum which contribute to children’s capacities to engage
in meaning making and develop understandings of their worlds (Wood, 2010). A focus on enabling
meaning and supporting understanding suggests that play is understood as context specific and
personally subjective so that a range of approaches can be adopted to meet diverse learning needs.
For example, Wood and Attfield (2005, p. 5) argue:
198 EARLY CHILDHOOD ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

Play cannot be easily defined or categorised because it is always context dependent, and the contexts
are varied. There are many different forms of play including: role play, imaginative play, socio-
dramatic play, heuristic play, constructive play, fantasy play, free-flow play, structured play, rough
and tumble play, all of which involve a wide range of activities and behaviours and result in varied
learning and developmental outcomes.

This way of thinking about play has informed our perspective on the learning and teaching
of environmental education in early childhood education because it allows the value environ-
mental education places on both experience (including values and action) and engagement with
knowledge to be acknowledged. This means rather than focusing only on how open-ended play
might intersect with environmental education that we have been able to draw on an understanding
of pedagogical play, which provides reference to a range of experiences, including in our work
what might be considered “structured” play. Our connection with a pedagogical perspective on
play emerged from an early pilot study we completed in 2007 when we first started investigating
whether children were aware of the knowledge teachers believed was embedded in the open-
ended environmental education-based experiences they provided for children (Cutter-Mackenzie
& Edwards, 2006). Through this work we came to understand three different types of pedagogical
play that seemed to influence teacher planning for learning and the ways in which children were
able to share what they understood of the content associated with each play type.

TOWARD THREE PLAY TYPES FOR LEARNING AND TEACHING

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

During 2007 we conducted a pilot study project in which we were attempting to determine
whether children were aware of the content knowledge in environmental education teachers
believed was embedded in open-ended play-based experiences (Edwards, Cutter-Mackenzie &
Hunt, 2010). During the course of this project we engaged with one of the participating teachers
(Mary) to examine the ways in which children could be supported to construct understandings
about the content knowledge embedded in play-based experiences. In Mary’s setting, the concept
was filtration and related to the children’s interests in saving water for the vegetable garden during
a time of intense drought. Mary provided the children with materials for filtrating water so that
water they might previously have used for “water painting” could be cleaned and re-cycled on the
vegetable garden. This work suggested to us three ways of thinking about children’s play-based
activity when engaging with environmental education as a learning area, including open-ended
play, modeled play and purposefully framed play:
1. Open-ended play: Play experiences where the teacher provides children with materials
suggestive of a environmental/sustainability concept, and with minimal engagement and
interaction allows them to examine and explore the materials as a basis for learning about
the environmental/sustainability concept;
2. Modeled play: Play experiences where the teacher illustrates, explains, and/or demon-
strates the use of materials suggestive of an environmental/sustainability concept prior to
allowing children to use the materials with minimal adult interaction as basis for learning
about the environmental/sustainability concept; and,
 CUTTER-MACKENZIE AND EDWARDS 199

TABLE 1
The Relationship Between Play Approach, Teacher Planning, and Children’s Descriptions of Learning

Children’s descriptions
of learning following
Teacher planning notes prior to their participation in
Approach to play implemented by teacher implementation of play approach play approach

Open-ended play: Children are provided with Planning notes tend to be descriptive. For Children say they have
materials. Asked to make dirty water example, outline what the activity will be learned “nothing.”
“clean.” Little or no discussion or modeling and what materials will be necessary for They were “just
of the activity. Children left to participate in implementing the experience. Little or playing.”
open-ended play with the materials. no consideration of the conceptual ideas
embedded in the activity and/or the
pedagogical strategies necessary for
realizing learning.
Modeled play: Children are shown a model of Planning notes combine description of the Children are able to
how the materials could be used to make a activity and indicate key concepts within describe the activity
filter for cleaning water. Children participate the activity that the teacher will focus on and the purpose of the
in the play experience following modeling during the modeling period. Little or no activity but not
by the teacher. consideration of the pedagogical necessarily the
strategies necessary for realizing conceptual ideas
learning. related to the goal.
Purposefully framed play: Children are Planning notes include a description of the Children are able to
provided with materials and participate in activity, indicate key concepts to be describe the goal and
open-ended play. Following the open-ended learned from the activity and outline outcome of the
play experience, the teacher models how the some pedagogical strategies for realizing activity and to
material could be used and engages in learning. identify some of the
discussion with the children about the conceptual ideas
activity. Children participate in the play related to the activity.
experience following the open-ended play,
modeling, and discussion

3. Purposefully framed play: Play experiences in which the teacher provides children with
materials suggestive of an environmental/sustainability concept and provides opportu-
nities for open-ended play, followed by modeled play and then teacher-child interac-
tion/engagement.
During the pilot study we invited the participating teachers to keep records of their planning for
the play experiences. We also videoed the implementation of the experiences, and later used the
video as the basis of a video-stimulated recall discussion with the children about their learning.
Analysis of the teacher documents and the children’s responses suggested that each play type
tended to influence the level and amount of teacher planning for the concepts associated with
environmental education they wanted to teach, how they would teach this, and the extent to which
the children were able to describe or talk about their learning (see Table 1).
This suggested to us that when teaching and learning environmental education in the early
years that there might be a relationship between the particular type of play and the extent to
which this type of play was likely to prompt teachers to clearly identify the knowledge children
would learn from the experience, and the pedagogical strategies they would employ to support
200 EARLY CHILDHOOD ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

this learning. If this was the case, the nature of the perceived gap between environmental and
early childhood education could potentially be addressed by thinking about the ways in which
the play types could be enacted so that the children and teachers would have the opportunity to
integrate experience, values, and knowledge rather than focusing only on the experience, which
might be offered by open-ended play alone. These ideas were the focus of our next research
project, where we hypothesized that our definition of purposefully framed play (open-ended
play, followed by modeled play and then opportunities for teacher-child interactions) would be
more likely to support teacher planning for learning and children’s learning than open-ended or
modeled play as stand-alone pedagogies.

RESEARCHING THE THREE PLAY TYPES

Data Collection

The project findings reported in this article were focused on researching the three play types,
and in particular our hypothesis regarding purposefully framed play. This project was conducted
across 16 early learning centers in Melbourne, Australia, including inner-city locations, outer
suburban, and metropolitan settings. All of the settings included children from sessional pre-
schools (kindergartens) with children aged four to five years (n = 114). All of the participating
teachers (n = 16; 3 male and 13 female) were qualified at the bachelor degree or higher level.
Some of the participants had previously expressed a gap in their knowledge about how to address
environmental content with preschool children through a local government staff survey, while
other participants were already implementing environmental education type programs within their
curriculum.2 A core aspect of the ethical procedures involved obtaining consent from children and
parents/families. Child assent was sought using a child-friendly explanatory statement and assent
form prior to participation. On actual days of data collection all children with prior and family
consent were invited verbally to participate in the associated experiences. Children declining
to participate or showing signs of not wanting to be involved (for example, asking to leave the
activity once they had commenced) were allowed to do so, without any pressure to stay even
though we preferred the same children were involved each time.
The participating teachers were invited to attend a two-hour professional learning session
as one whole group, during which findings from the pilot study were presented and the three
play types defined and discussed. The teachers were provided with a concept map suggestive of
biodiversity and sustainability concepts appropriate to the early childhood setting. The teachers
used this map as a guide for selecting an area of focus within their centers, which connected
with the children’s interests and existing program activities. Having selected an area of focus,
the teachers developed play experiences that related to each of the three defined play types.
The play types were presented as a series of clusters to which teachers decided which cluster
they would like to be part of, usually according to geographic considerations but also play type
order. For example, three teachers worked in cluster one, which meant they implemented first
open-ended play, then modeled play, and finally purposefully framed play. Teachers in cluster
two implemented a modeled play, then open-ended play, and finally purposefully framed play
experience. In total there were six clusters with each cluster having a different iteration of the
play types (See Table 2).
 CUTTER-MACKENZIE AND EDWARDS 201

TABLE 2
Research Clusters, Sites, Play Types, and Participants

Research cluster Number of settings/sites Order of play types Participants

City 3 Open-ended play 3 teachers

Modeled play 21 children (up to seven per site)
Purposefully framed play
Suburban 1 3 Open-ended play 3 teachers
Purposefully framed play 21 children (up to seven per site)
Modeled play
Suburban 2 3 Modeled play 3 teachers
Open-ended play 21 children (up to seven per site)
Purposefully framed play
Suburban 2 3 Modeled play 3 teachers
Purposefully framed play 21 children (up to seven per site)
Open-ended play
Suburban 1 2 Purposefully framed play 2 teachers
Open-ended play 21 children (up to seven per site)
Modeled play
Suburban 1 2 Purposefully framed play 2 teachers
Modeled play 21 children (up to seven per site)
Open-ended play

The environment/sustainability concept teachers worked with remained the same across the
implementation of each play type. Example environmental/sustainability concepts implemented
included mini-beasts (worms, bugs), ponds, recycling, gardening, and Australian animal habitats.
The teachers maintained their normal planning and curriculum documentation in addition to
completing a reflective journal.
Children were invited to participate in the implementation of the three play types. In cases
where parents did not provide consent for project participation, the play types were repeated so
that all children had access to the experiences, although only children with consent to participate
in the project were videoed. Each implementation of the three play types was video-recorded and
the recordings later shown to the children as the basis of a video-stimulated recall group interview.
These group interviews were also video-recorded and focused on discussing with the children
what they were doing, and what they believed they were learning during their participation in
each play type. The group interview footage was later shown to the teachers who discussed
the children’s responses to their participation in each play type in relation to their planning for
the learning, and their interactions with the children during each play type. Each teacher was
individually interviewed, which was also video-recorded to provide additional data concerning
the educators’ opinions and reactions. (See Appendix 1 for the interview protocol for the children
and the educators). Fleer (2008) has reported the effectiveness of using video-cued recall in
interviews with young children. In a study about children’s everyday science concepts she was
able to use video images to “generate interpretations about the motives, goals and values of the
participants” (Fleer, 2008, p. 113). Thomson (2008) similarly argues that using video-stimulated
recall to support discussions with participants can elicit a range of responses that would not
otherwise be possible using traditional language-based approaches. This is because video footage
202 EARLY CHILDHOOD ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

catches action, body language, and facial expressions that convey additional meaning to spoken
activity, and so when shared with participants potentially prompt additional areas of discussion
or focus (Thomson, 2008). This makes video particularly suited for use in early childhood
contexts as the technology is able to capture the pedagogical complexity of involving children
in multiple activities, and in a range of child-child and adult-child interactions. Overall, the
video data generation was collected over six months, including the play type implementation
(approximately 30 hours of video footage), interviewing and showing the children the video of
themselves (approximately 10 hours of child interview video footage), and then the follow-up
teacher video of watching the children’s interviews (approximately 20 hours of teacher video
footage).

Data Analysis

All videoed data interviews with teachers and children were fully transcribed and programming
and planning notes converted to pdf. Data analysis employed a qualitative thematic approach.
Each set of teacher interviews and planning documents were examined according to each play
type to determine the content and pedagogical strategies teachers identified prior to and after
implementation of the play type. Frequencies were used to determine the content and pedagogical
strategies identified by all 16 teachers (Edwards & Cutter-Mackenzie, 2011). This initial level of
analysis suggested two important outcomes which held implications for our hypothesis. These
were:
1. That 15/16 of the participating teachers did not use the project definition of purposefully
framed play presented to them during the professional learning session; and
2. That 14/16 of the teachers suggested that the three play types in combination were most
effective for supporting the teaching and learning of environmental education in early
childhood settings.
After this initial analysis, we found it necessary to complete a second round of analysis that
focused on recoding key results in order to understand the ways the educators were making
meaning about the relationship between play and environmental education content.

FINDINGS

Two sets of findings emerged from the coding of the data, including: (a) that the teacher approaches
to purposefully framed play comprised a series of pedagogical strategies that differed from
the project definition; and (b) the teachers’ suggestions that the three play types worked best
in combination for supporting the teaching and learning of environmental education in early
childhood education. Each of these is now discussed in turn.

Teacher Approaches to Purposefully Framed Play

Sixteen teachers attended the professional learning session in which we outlined the findings
of the pilot study and introduced the project definitions for each play type. According to these
definitions we considered purposefully framed play as:
 CUTTER-MACKENZIE AND EDWARDS 203

TABLE 3
Range of Pedagogical Strategies Outlined by 15 Teachers for the Implementation of Purposefully
Framed Play

Teacher oriented Questions and discussion Materials and equipment

 Step the children through the
process.
 Explain the children might like to
look next time they come to the
experience.
 Talk about changes and
observations
 Discussions about posters
 Open-ended questions to prompt
discussion
 Share a book.
 Position the worm farm in the room so
that all can access.
 Share posters about mini-beasts.
 Look at insects and use magnifying

 Demonstrate while children work.  Looking for existing knowledge glass.

 Sort.  Question: What do you know  Draw an insect using fine black

 Provide information. about bugs? markers.

 Explain procedures, modeling step  Discussion, observation, look, feel  Show children the computer
by step. share microscope and investigate pond
 Sing song about worms.  Group reflection water.
 Children draw what they see under the

microscope and cross-reference to

books.

Experiences in which the teacher provides children with materials suggestive of an environmen-
tal/sustainability concept and provides opportunities for open-ended play, followed by modeled play
and then teacher-child interaction/engagement.

Of the participating teachers only one teacher followed this definition of purposefully framed
play in his planning for, and implementation of, the experience. The remaining 15 teachers
appeared to plan and implement a form of purposefully framed play, which used pedagogical
strategies that provided opportunities for teacher-child interactions and engagements about the
concept. This meant the teachers focused mainly on how teacher-child interactions would be
used during this form of pedagogical play to engage with the concept, rather than preceding
the teacher-child interactions with open-ended play and modeled play as per our definition of
purposefully framed play. Examination of the teacher planning documentation showed evidence
of this approach to purposefully framed play, with the teachers focusing on how they would
engage and interact with the children about the concept during the implementation of the play
type. This included a range of pedagogical strategies, with some being more teacher orientated,
others focused on exploring children’s ideas through questions and discussion, and others on the
use of materials and equipment to explore ideas together. The range of pedagogical strategies
outlined by 15 of the teachers for the implementation of purposefully framed play is presented in
Table 3.
These pedagogical strategies suggested that the teachers perceived purposefully framed play as
an approach focused on supporting teacher-child interactions and engagement about the concept
through the use of a range of support materials and equipment. This differed from our project
definition as it did not include a period of open-ended and modeled play prior to the teacher-
child interaction and engagement. We contend, therefore, that this finding was important to the
secondary finding in which the teachers argued that the play types in combination were important
for supporting learning as it was their own approach to purposefully framed play that they were
referring to as the third play type. It was interesting to note that even the teachers who commented
204 EARLY CHILDHOOD ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

TABLE 4
Five Main Descriptors Used by Teachers to Explain the Use of the Three Play Types in Combination

Descriptor (use of three play types in combination to support teaching and learning in
No. of teachers environmental education)

2 Knowing how and when to use the three play types during interactions with children
2 Starting with purposefully framed play then moving into modeled and open-ended play
2 Starting with open-ended play, then moving into modeled and purposefully framed play
3 Always leading and extending children’s interests by connecting with open-ended play
5 Connecting learning across the three play types

that they would not usually choose to work with children in this way, felt that purposefully framed
play was more content focused and helpful in directing their planning and teaching strategies,
and therefore assisted the children’s content learning in the field of biodiversity.

Three Play Types in Combination

Reference to the play types as a combined pedagogical approach occurred in 14 out of the 16
teacher interviews. In general, these references emerged as the teachers discussed the ways in
which the play types seemed to inform the children’s learning about biodiversity and sustainability
over the duration of the project in relation to each other. Discussion regarding the combined nature
of the three play types fell under five main themes, which were used by the teachers to describe
how the play types appeared to operate in practice as a way of supporting the learning and
teaching of biodiversity and sustainability in early childhood education. It is important to note,
that in referring to the three play types that the teachers understood purposefully framed play
to represent teacher-orientated activities, questions, and discussions and the use of materials
and equipment as the basis for teacher-child interaction and engagement. Table 4 presents these
themes as five main descriptors that were used by the teachers to explain the ways in which the
three play types could be considered in combination as supporting their approach teaching and
learning about environment/sustainability in early childhood education.
In this article we focus on the fifth descriptor, “connecting learning across the three play types,”
in more detail. In doing so, we are interested in examining how this descriptor positions the three
play types as a combined pedagogical approach for thinking about the teaching and learning of
environmental education in early childhood education.

CONNECTING LEARNING ACROSS THE THREE PLAY TYPES

This descriptor was associated with teacher discussion regarding the way in which the three
play types seemed to allow children to connect learning from one play experience to the next.
This was an interesting finding because the teachers had not used our definition of purposefully
framed play, but rather adapted this so that it focused on creating opportunities for teacher-
child interactions and engagement about the concept during the play experience. However, in
suggesting that a combination of the three play types was useful (i.e., open-ended play, modeled
play, and [teacher defined] purposefully framed play), the teachers inadvertently supported our
 CUTTER-MACKENZIE AND EDWARDS 205

hypothesis that purposefully.framed play (according to the original project definition) would be
best suited to supporting teaching and learning environmental education in the early years.
When the teachers participated in the teacher interviews, their focus was on describing how
they had seen the children connecting with the learning across the three play types according
to the pedagogical strengths associated with each type. This meant that rather than valuing one
play type over another, that the teachers were interested in how the play types offered a range
of opportunities for supporting learning and teaching. For example, one of the teachers (Tracy)
had focused on macro-invertebrate habitats as her environment/sustainability concept (due to the
children’s interest in finding mini-beasts during outdoor play time). Tracy implemented modeled
play, then open-ended play and finally purposefully framed play. In discussing, the children’s
responses to their play experiences Tracy identified the ways in which each play type held
potential for learning:

I think they [the play types] all have a role, and I think we probably do use a lot of it in different
ways, and depending on what the children are actually doing in their learning, whereas we know as
to how much they do need that extra interaction. [Sometimes] they are having a go at the materials
and sometimes you are just watching and use that as a valuable tool and think, “OK.” Especially
something like this, as much as they were interested in it, to sort of say, “what is it that they are
wanting to know or learn about?” And then try and pick up from it, and while they are trying, to use
that time to do some modeling and then step back. (Tracy, interview transcript, July 14, 2010, p. 7)

This idea was also examined by Sheree whose play experiences involved the concept of
recycling. This focus emerged from daily practices in the center regarding the recycling of
food and waste materials. Food scraps were given to the worm farm and the rabbits, and other
materials such as paper went into recycling containers. Sheree commented on how she had
previously struggled to integrate scientific content knowledge into the curriculum as she was
unsure of the role of the teacher in a play-based learning situation. She suggested that the three
play types provided a way of approaching this because it meant the children could have open-
ended experiences, and yet she could still introduce ideas and concepts which they might not
otherwise discover on their own (Sheree, interview transcript, August 11, 2010, pp. 4–5). This
was important for Sheree because she believed that it was not the age of the children that limited
the teaching of environment/sustainability content knowledge, so much as a focus on play-based
learning in which she could not see a role for herself as a teacher (Sheree, interview transcript,
August 11, 2010, p. 4). The three play types in combination were considered useful because she
could start with an open-ended experience and then move into modeling so that “you could model
like these three steps and having modeled just give them a little bit of it, and of course, purposeful
explains it” (Sheree, interview transcript, August 11, 2010, p. 4). In this way, the three play types
were not seen as separate pedagogical approaches, but as a way of connecting the learning and
teaching from one experience to the next so that the children had opportunities to explore the
content and then have some explanation of the content.
This way of thinking about the play types was valued by other teachers, who were also able
to describe how they had seen the children carrying learning from one experience into the next.
Another teacher (Belinda) was focused on exploring habitats for Australian animals with the
children. In her modeled play experience, she invited the children to join her in a dramatic
play scenario with background music and different habitats in which she acted out the needs of
animals, such as a kangaroo, a koala, and possum. She then provided the children with small
206 EARLY CHILDHOOD ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

plastic animals and a “miniature” habitat with stones, twigs, and dirt for their open-ended play.
Belinda described how a child’s understanding about a lizard’s habitat was possibly informed by
learning during the modeled play experience, where he was able to make a judgement about what
might constitute a safe place for a lizard:

The learning that they did beforehand then influenced their play. I think they took on board a lot of
those conversations and they just continued it. And I was able to influence that a little bit. I think
at one point they wanted to put the lizard onto the pebbles and I said “it needs somewhere to hide
watch out a kookaburra is coming!” and I think that he brought it back across and he went “hang on a
minute, there are more rocks over here.” I think that is what happened. (Belinda, interview transcript,
August 25, 2010, p. 4)

The idea that learning from one play experience was influencing the direction of activity in
a consequent experience was also noted by Cathy. Cathy’s focus had been on the development
of a scarecrow for the vegetable garden. This was derived from the children’s concern that the
blackbirds were eating the seedlings in their vegetable garden. Cathy had open-ended play first,
then purposefully framed and finally modeled play. In these experiences Cathy provided materials
and support materials (i.e., books and posters) for making scarecrows. She talked about how the
children’s activity in their second experience was more collaborative and engaged and how she
associated this with their previous participation in the open-ended play:

I feel even in the whole three [play types], the learning outcomes were all there for all of the children,
but what they were taking away was very different. The very first one (open-ended) they were learning,
“OK, we are going to make a scarecrow, not too sure how we are going to do it, are we going to
work together as a team, or do it individually?” But as it went on [to purposefully framed], there
seemed to be a lot more team work, a lot more working together, a lot more cooperative play. I don’t
know if it was because I was there. I really feel it’s because they’ve been there done that [in the first
experience], seen how to do it and they’ve got the confidence and initiative to actually take it further.
(Cathy, interview transcript, August 31, 2010, p. 7)

Cathy then described how she had taken this awareness about how learning could be carried
over from one play type to another into an interaction with some children around the concept of
digestion. This had emerged from the provision of a hospital being set up in the home corner
where the child had been participating in open-ended play. Cathy added a book about digestion
to the corner, and outlined how she and the children participated in what she called “modeled
play” around the book and the content of the book. She then talked about how she would engage
in purposefully framed play with children who were showing further interest in the concept of
digestion, while also providing continued opportunities for open-ended play. In this way, Cathy
argued that one play type was not more important than another. In terms of learning and teaching
about environmental education in early childhood settings, this way of thinking about the play
types meant that Cathy was able to integrate experience and discussion about the content across a
variety of play types in a way that supported her beliefs about her role as a kindergarten teacher.
For example:

I just feel that it is important that the children are exploring because when they are exploring, touching
and feeling things, that’s when the learning is occurring rather than someone constantly at you. I just
have to keep thinking about all of the things—we’ve got the visual, we’ve got the auditory, and we’ve
 CUTTER-MACKENZIE AND EDWARDS 207

got the hands on. Me, myself—are about the hands on, and so I like to cover all of the bases, and I
feel that the modeled covers that area more so.

The perception that learning was connecting across the play types was also noted by Gisella.
Gisella’s experiences were focused on learning about seeds and how seeds grow. She began with
modeled play, then purposefully framed, and ended with open-ended play. She described how the
children’s efforts when they were provided with materials in the open experience reflected what
she perceived to be the learning that had occurred particularly during the purposefully framed
experience:

I had modeled first, then purposeful and then free [open] play. So I feel the progression onto the
free play really showed at the end with free play they had learnt so much and I felt that it was
assisted because of the purposeful where I had re-instated it, not necessarily the modeled. Some of
the children, I think it was this one here [indicating video footage], he had actually recalled and
observed what I had done. He was trying to inform the other children of what the procedure was,
digging down to put a one [a seed] in. (Gisella, interview transcript, July 29, 2010, p. 2)

In the purposefully framed experience Gisella had engaged the children in discussion about
their understandings and experiences of seeds. The children talked about their gardens at home,
and relatives with whom they associated the idea of growing vegetables. A book was shared, and
then Gisella and the children planted seeds in small seed pots together. Of particular emphasis
was the idea that the seeds needed to be planted quite deeply in the soil in order to grow. It was
this idea that Gisella saw as emerging when the children were using the materials on their own,
and which she saw as the carrying forward of the learning into the next play experience. When
questioned as to whether this would have been the case had the children experienced open-ended
play first, Gisella suggested probably not, because as the open experience progressed, two boys
were observed using the dirt and water to create mud once they had finished planting their seeds.
Gisella saw this as form of sensory and exploratory play, which was also credited with value
for the children’s learning. However, her belief was that this was the play that would have been
most likely to occur had the children not had the purposefully framed play first. This raised an
interesting question for Gisella as to whether the order of the play types was likely to influence
the nature of the learning, and the value of opportunities to explore materials in relation to
consideration of content-based ideas:

Towards the end of the free play some of the boys had completed their task and then saw that there
was some remaining potting mix in the bag. So they were having lots of fun transferring the remaining
potting mix into the soil and patting it down and it was becoming quite sensory. They were having
an absolute ball. I believe that that if they hadn’t had the modeled and purposeful initially, but had
the free play it could well, I think it would have probably been a lot of the sensory type play, “let’s
get in there and tip it all in” without actually learning and talking about why we need to have seeds
or seedling in a certain depth and that they need the water and they need the sun. (Gisella, interview
transcript, July 29, p. 3)

Interestingly, Gisella later talked about the value and importance of open-ended play and explo-
ration for children’s learning. Yet, in this reference to open-ended play there was still a belief
about the importance of children accessing content knowledge in addition to experiences for
open-ended exploration:
208 EARLY CHILDHOOD ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

I really believe the personal learning environment needs to be a mixture of all three, preferably open-
ended always. I am for open-ended here, but I don’t know how to put this, in different circumstances
children need to have knowledge of the content, they need that knowledge too combined with the
more exploratory. (Gisella, interview transcript, July 29, 2010, p. 7)

Gisella, like Belinda, Cathy, Sheree, and Tracy, noted value in the children’s open and exploratory
play, and yet suggested that when working with a subject area such as environmental education,
that the opportunity to engage with content knowledge had the potential to further inform chil-
dren’s exploratory play. For these teachers, the learning and teaching of environmental education
in early childhood education therefore involved more than the provision of experience and op-
portunities for exploration through open-ended play. The role of content knowledge and teacher
interactions in association with these experiences was also considered important. What is inter-
esting in the context of early childhood education is the way in which learning from one play type
was described by the teachers as connecting with the experiences in the consequent play type.
This finding suggests that rather than thinking about environmental education in the early years
only in terms of purely experiential, that content knowledge might be successfully engaged with
across iterative patterns of play types.

THE THREE PLAY TYPES AS A PEDAGOGICAL MODEL FOR EARLY

CHILDHOOD ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

The iterative use of three play types with content knowledge associated with environmental edu-
cation provides a framework for thinking about how environmental education and early childhood
education might be integrated. This is because in combination, the three play types (using the
teacher definition of purposefully framed play) provide various opportunities for experience, con-
tent, exploration, and teacher-child engagement and interaction. When experienced iteratively,
the pedagogical strength of one play type potentially feeds into the next. This was illustrated by
Gisella, Cathy, and Belinda each of whom described how they saw the children’s participation
and activity as informed by prior participation in an earlier play type. In this way, the focus is not
only on the relationship between experience, values, and knowledge (Cutter-Mackenzie, 2007),
or only on the idea that play-based experience leads to learning (White et al., 2007). Rather, each
play type is perceived as potentially contributing to what will be experienced and understood in
the next.
This way of thinking about play-based environmental education draws explicitly on a peda-
gogical orientation toward play (Pramling, Samuleson, & Carlsson, 2008; Wood, 2010), rather
than a perspective which might emphasize opportunities for only open-ended or freely chosen
experience as appropriate for supporting children’s learning. In acknowledging this position on
play, we are not suggesting that open-ended or freely chosen play is not important for young
children, or to early childhood education. Rather, we are interested in the ways in which the
learning and teaching of environmental education might be most appropriately supported and
enacted in early childhood settings. What is required is “deep learning” (Littledyke & McCrea,
2009, p. 43) that helps children engage with content and concepts that relate to the type of expe-
riences that might normally be associated with more open-ended play. Purposefully framed play
potentially supports such “deep learning” because it appeared to help the teachers think and plan
more carefully about the environmental content they intended for children to learn and which
 CUTTER-MACKENZIE AND EDWARDS 209

FIGURE 1 Pedagogical model for thinking about environmental education in early childhood (color figure available
online).

pedagogical strategies they would use to enable the learning. This was clearly evidenced by one
of the teachers, Christie, who acknowledged that she had to learn more about biodiversity herself
prior to implementing the purposefully framed experience, stated that she needed to do “lots of
research on the topic to be more knowledgeable” before starting to teach the content knowledge
to the children. It was also expressed in her consequent belief that the purposefully framed play
was the experience in which the children were learning about the biodiversity concepts, rather
than the learning dispositions that were associated with the open-ended play.
The findings from our work suggest that the combined use of the three play types offer
potential for realizing this goal because of the way in which they provide multiple opportunities
for connecting content and experience in relation to the pedagogical use of play in early childhood
education. This is important, because as we outlined earlier in this article environmental and
early childhood education have historically different emphases on how to approach teaching and
learning, and the role of content knowledge in teaching and learning. The findings emerging from
this project suggest a way of thinking about play in which open-ended play, modeled play, and
teacher-child interactions about content knowledge associated with environmental education,
might be employed to bridge the gap between these two different approaches. This idea is
presented in Figure 1 in which pedagogical elements traditionally associated with environmental
education are positioned at the top of the diagram. Pedagogical elements historically associated
210 EARLY CHILDHOOD ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

with early childhood education are positioned toward the bottom of the diagram. In the center is
a Venn diagram representing potential connections between open-ended play, modeled play and
the use of teacher-child interactions. Abstracted from the teacher data, the diagram supports our
initial definition of “purposefully framed play” and represents a way of thinking about how the
pedagogical gap between environmental and early childhood education might be addressed. Here,
we suggest a pedagogical model for thinking about environmental education in early childhood,
which connects with the importance of experience, content knowledge, and values in terms of
environmental education, while also valuing the role of play and experience in teaching and
learning from an early childhood perspective.

CONCLUSION

In recent years environmental education has attracted increased interest as a subject area of
importance in early childhood education. In our work, we have been interested in how the
potential pedagogical gap between these two fields of education might be addressed so that the
content knowledge associated with environmental education is able to be more strongly aligned
with play-based learning experiences as a basis for teaching and learning in the early years. Our
investigation of the three play types suggests that the concept of “purposefully framed” play when
understood as the provision of open-ended play, then modeled play, and finally opportunities for
teacher/child interactions and engagement, potentially bridges this gap by allowing experience
and content knowledge to connect across play types. This orientation toward purposefully framed
play supports research suggesting children require more than open-ended play to experience
meaningful learning in early childhood settings. This is because it has been shown that experience
alone is insufficient for allowing children to access the content knowledge embedded in this form
of play (Fleer, 2010; Hedges & Cullen, 2005). Siraj-Blatchford’s (2009) work into the concept of
sustained shared thinking has also shown that adult interaction and support is necessary to bridge
the gap between experience and the construction of actual knowledge and understanding.
However, further questions arise due the nature of the implementation of the play types
in our study. For example, the play types were not all implemented in the order suggested
in our definition of purposefully framed play. Furthermore, the play types were implemented
across several different days over a three-week period. This means further research is needed
to determine whether the order in which play types are experienced influences play activity and
therefore the teaching and learning of biodiversity and sustainability. Whether the play types
are most effectively used in a single session or across a period of days also warrants further
investigation. Answers to these questions are necessary to add further detail to our proposed
pedagogical model for thinking about environmental education in early childhood education
because they will suggest how implementation of the combined play types relates to and further
supports teaching and learning about environmental education in early childhood.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The research reported in this article was funded by the Australian Research Council (ARC) under
the Discovery Project Scheme 2010–2011. The authors wish to thank the executive editor and
reviewers for their helpful suggestions in revising this article. They also wish to acknowledge
 CUTTER-MACKENZIE AND EDWARDS 211

Deb Moore’s contribution to the overall ARC project and her significant research assistant
role.

NOTES

1. In this article we understand “content” to refer to conceptual knowledge associated with particular
knowledge domains or learning areas (Hedges & Cullen, 2005). In this article, we are concerned
with environmental education as a knowledge domain, and indeed content area of early childhood
education.
2. The project was conducted with ethical approval from the Monash University Human Research Ethics
Committee (MUHREC) and the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD).

REFERENCES

Brooker, L. (2010). Learning to play, or playing to learn? Children’s participation in the cultures of homes and settings?
In L. Brooker & S. Edwards (Eds.), Engaging play (pp. 39–53). London, UK: Open University Press.
Cutter-Mackenzie, A. N. (2007). Knowledge matters: Teaching environmental education in the early years. In M. Fleer
(Ed.), Young children: Thinking about the scientific world (pp. 54–60). Watson ACT Australia: Early Childhood
Australia Inc.
Cutter-Mackenzie, A., & Edwards, S. (2006). Environmental education as a content area in early childhood education
and curriculum. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 22(2), 13–19.
Cutter Mackenzie, A., Edwards, S., & Fleer, M., (2009). Investigating the environmental scientific concepts in children’s
play: How do children and teachers interpret play-based learning? Australian Journal of Research in Early Childhood
Education, 16(1), 49–61.
Cutter-Mackenzie, A., Edwards, S., & Widdop Quinton, H. (in press). Child-framed video research methodologies: Issues,
possibilities and challenges for researching with children. Children’s Geographies.
Cutter-Mackenzie, A., & Smith, R. (2003). Ecological literacy: The missing paradigm in environmental education (part
one). Environmental Education Research, 9, 497–524.
Davis, J. (2005). Educating for sustainability in the early years: Creating cultural change in a child care setting. Australian
Journal of Environmental Education, 21, 47–55.
Davis, J. M. (2009). Revealing the research “hole” of early childhood education for sustainability: A preliminary survey
of the literature. Environmental Education Research, 15, 227–241.
Edwards, S., & Cutter-Mackenzie, A. (2011). Environmentalising early childhood curriculum through play-based peda-
gogies. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36(1), 51–59.
Edwards, S., Cutter-Mackenzie, A., & Hunt, E. (2010). Framing play for learning: Professional reflections on the role
of open-ended play in early childhood education. In L. Brooker & S. Edwards (Eds.), Engaging play (pp. 136–151).
London, UK: Open 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), 65–77.
Fleer, M. (2008). The relations between cultural-historical theory, methodology, and digital video methods. In M.
Hedgaard & M. Fleer (Eds.), Studying children in a cultural historical approach (pp. 104–117). Berkshire, UK: Open
University Press.
Fleer, M. (2010). Concepts in play: A cultural historical view of early learning and development. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Gibbons, A. (2007). The politics of processes and products in education: An early childhood meta-narrative in crisis?
Educational Philosophy and Theory, 39, 300–311.
Hedges, H., & Cullen, J. (2005). Subject knowledge in early childhood curriculum and pedagogy: Beliefs and practices.
Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 6(1), 66–79.
Jordan, B. (2009). Scaffolding learning and co-constructing understandings. In A. Anning, J. Cullen, & M. Fleer (Eds.),
Early childhood education: Society and culture (pp. 39–53). London, UK: Sage.
212 EARLY CHILDHOOD ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002): Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to
pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8, 239–260.
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.
Leopold, A. (1949). A Sand County almanac and sketches here and there. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Littledyke, M., & McCrea, N. (2009). Starting sustainability early: Young children exploring people and places. In
M. Littledyke, N. Taylor, & C. Eames (Eds.), Education for sustainability in the primary curriculum (pp. 39–57).
Melbourne, Australia: Palgrave McMillan.
Pearson, E., & Degotardi, S. (2009). Education for sustainable development in early childhood education: A global
solution to local concerns. International Journal of Early Childhood, 419, 97–111.
Pramling Samuelson, I., & Carlsson, M. (2008). The playing learning child: Towards a pedagogy of early childhood.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 52, 623–641.
Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2007). Creativity, communication and collaboration: The identification of pedagogic progression in
sustained shared thinking. Asia-Pacific Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education, 1(2), 3–23.
Stephen, C. (2010). Pedagogy: The silent partner in early years learning. Early Years: An International Journal of
Research and Development, 30(1), 15–28.
Thomson, P. (2008). Children and young people: Voices in visual research. In P. Thomson (Ed.), Doing visual research
with children and young people (pp. 1–19). London, UK: Routledge.
White, J., O’Malley, A., Toso, M., Rockel, J., Stover, S., & Ellis, F. (2007). A contemporary glimpse of play and learning
in Aotearoa New Zealand. International Journal of Early Childhood, 39(1), 93–105).
Wood, E., & Attfield, J. (2005). Play, learning and the early childhood curriculum (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage.
Wood, L. (2010). Developing integrated pedagogical approaches to play and learning. In P. Broadhead, J. Howard, & E.
Wood (Eds.), Play and learning in the early years (pp. 9–26). London, UK: Sage.

APPENDIX 1: CHILDREN AND EDUCATOR INTERVIEW

PROTOCOL SAMPLE

Educator Interview Questions Included

Any interactions with, and between, the teachers and children for each play type were recorded.
These recordings were used as data for examining how the pedagogical strategies educators
identified in their planning were implemented in practice. The teachers were then shown this
footage, which was used as the basis for individual interviews where the teachers discussed the
particular pedagogical strategies they had implemented for each play approach. Sample questions,
included, “Why have you intervened/not intervened in the play at this point?” “How/why are you
using discussion, modeling, and/or direct teaching (for example) in this play episode?” “Did your
planning for this play experience influence how you interacted/did not interact with the children
during this play episode?” “How?” “Why/why not?”

Children Interview Questions Included

Following the play experiences the children engaged in video stimulated recall interviews. Using
interview schedules refined during the pilot project, the children were provided with prompts
such as “What do you remember about playing (for example) with these pond animals?” “What
do you think you were learning about when you played with the pond?” “How do you think
you learned those things about the animals?” “What else can you tell us about what you can see
yourselves or your friends doing on the video?” (Cutter-Mackenzie, Edwards, & Fleer, 2009). The
 CUTTER-MACKENZIE AND EDWARDS 213

interviews with the children were video-recorded so that the footage the children were watching
was captured along with the children’s responses to their play. This innovative approach has
been trialed in the pilot project, and found to provide an important secondary level of data to
the interview transcript as it visually captures the children’s responses to their play experiences
(Cutter-Mackenzie, Edwards, & Widdop Quinton, in press). This means when analyzing the
transcript data the researchers can view the “footage of the footage” to see which instances in
the play experience children are referencing with their comments. The collection of data about
the children’s learning took two forms: (a) the footage of the children watching their own play
footage; and (b) transcript data of the video stimulated interview with the children.

(Note: Implementation of the pilot study has indicated that the children are not overly concerned
or interrupted in their play, or during the interview, by the presence of the video cameras.)
Copyright of Journal of Environmental Education is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.