Metadata of the chapter that will be visualized online

Chapter Title In Place(S): Dwelling on Culture, Materiality, and Affect

Copyright Year 2018
Copyright Holder Springer International Publishing AG
Corresponding Author Family Name Waite
Particle
Given Name Sue
Suffix
Organization/University Plymouth Institute of Education,
Plymouth University
City Devon
Country UK
Email sjwaite@plymouth.ac.uk
Author Family Name Quay
Particle
Given Name John
Suffix
Division/Department Melbourne Graduate School of
Education
Organization/University University of Melbourne
City Melbourne
State VIC
Country Australia AU1

Email jquay@unimelb.edu.au
Abstract (How) do places affect us? This chapter will explore how place is
experienced by children, referencing empirical studies that reflect
several forms of outdoor learning, both curricular and outside the
classroom. Outdoor learning is undergoing a renaissance of interest and
is widely seen as an effective means of connecting children to the natural
world (Louv. Last child in the woods. Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill,
New York, 2010). This common conceptualization will be challenged by
recognizing the child within nature. In examining the question of the effect
of places on young people (and vice versa), the paper will employ theories
of cultural density (Waite. Cam J Edu 43(4):413–433, 2013; Waite.
Culture clash and concord: supporting early learning outdoors in the
UK. In: Prince H, Henderson K, Humberstone B (eds) International
handbook of outdoor studies. Routledge, London, 2015) and
cultureplace (Quay. Stud Philos Edu 36:463–476, 2017) in relation to
how culture informs place and pedagogies within them. It will argue that
the more-than-human world shapes possibilities for interaction but that
these are mediated by individual, structural, and cultural influences, both
acknowledged and tacit, in the enactment of outdoor learning within and
 across countries (Malone, Waite. Student outcomes and natural schooling:
pathways from evidence to impact report. Plymouth University,
Plymouth, 2016).
Interweaving multidisciplinary perspectives, the chapter considers
implications for practice and suggests that feelings and affect may act as
intrapersonal organizers of this complex interplay of cultural and material
influences. It will argue that in rejecting human dominion over nature,
place as “personal” is nonetheless a key contributor to the power of
outdoor learning to transform lives.
Keywords Culture - Place - Affect - Materiality - Cultureplace - Cultural density -
(separated by “-”) Outdoor learning
 1 In Place(S): Dwelling on Culture, Materiality,
2 and Affect

3 Sue Waite and John Quay

4 Contents
5 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
6 In Place: Self and Social Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
7 In Place: Place-Based Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
8 In Place: Situated Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9 In Place: Childhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
10 In Place: The Anthropocene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11 In Place: Cultureplace and Cultureplaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
12 In Place: Cultural Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
13 In Cultureplaces with Cultural Densities: Implications for the Enactment of Outdoor Learning 15
14 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

15 Abstract
16 (How) do places affect us? This chapter will explore how place is experienced by
17 children, referencing empirical studies that reflect several forms of outdoor
18 learning, both curricular and outside the classroom. Outdoor learning is under-
19 going a renaissance of interest and is widely seen as an effective means of
20 connecting children to the natural world (Louv. Last child in the woods. Algon-
21 quin Books of Chapel Hill, New York, 2010). This common conceptualization
22 will be challenged by recognizing the child within nature. In examining the
23 question of the effect of places on young people (and vice versa), the paper will
24 employ theories of cultural density (Waite. Cam J Edu 43(4):413–433, 2013;

S. Waite (*)
Plymouth Institute of Education, Plymouth University, Devon, UK
e-mail: sjwaite@plymouth.ac.uk
J. Quay
AU1 Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
e-mail: jquay@unimelb.edu.au

# Springer International Publishing AG 2018 1

A. Cutter-Mackenzie et al. (eds.), Research Handbook on Childhoodnature,
Springer International Handbooks of Education,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51949-4_13-1
 2 S. Waite and J. Quay

25 Waite. Culture clash and concord: supporting early learning outdoors in the UK.
26 In: Prince H, Henderson K, Humberstone B (eds) International handbook of
27 outdoor studies. Routledge, London, 2015) and cultureplace (Quay. Stud Philos
28 Edu 36:463–476, 2017) in relation to how culture informs place and pedagogies
29 within them. It will argue that the more-than-human world shapes possibilities for
30 interaction but that these are mediated by individual, structural, and cultural
31 influences, both acknowledged and tacit, in the enactment of outdoor learning
32 within and across countries (Malone, Waite. Student outcomes and natural
33 schooling: pathways from evidence to impact report. Plymouth University,
34 Plymouth, 2016).
35 Interweaving multidisciplinary perspectives, the chapter considers implica-
36 tions for practice and suggests that feelings and affect may act as intrapersonal
37 organizers of this complex interplay of cultural and material influences. It will
38 argue that in rejecting human dominion over nature, place as “personal” is
39 nonetheless a key contributor to the power of outdoor learning to transform lives.

40 Keywords
41 Culture · Place · Affect · Materiality · Cultureplace · Cultural density · Outdoor
42 learning

43 Introduction

44 We suggest that all our experiences occur in place as emplaced and in culture as
45 enculturated. To construct this argument, we will consider the concept of place and
46 illustrate ways in which place is experienced by children and young people using
47 examples from empirical studies that reflect several forms of outdoor learning, both
48 curricular and informal. Drawing upon diverse theoretical frames as well as exam-
49 ples of children in particular places, we will discuss whether theories of cultural
50 density (Waite, 2013) and cultureplace (Quay, 2017) may help to improve under-
51 standing of the affect of places. In conclusion, we will suggest some ways that
52 careful thinking about cultureplaces and cultural density might help to shape respon-
53 sive and responsible pedagogies which fully embrace the fact that living and learning
54 is always in place.

55 In Place: Self and Social Space

56 A rich seam of thinking can be found which troubles the idea of place as defined by
57 physical boundaries; clearly this chapter cannot cover it all. Tuan’s thesis of place
58 (see e.g., Tuan, 1977, 2001) stems from an understanding of ourselves as “being-in-
59 the-world” and includes personal and social striving toward “a good life.” His
60 relational view of geography sees humanity as inside the world, both physically
61 and emotionally, famously defining place as space with meaning that is both
 In Place(S): Dwelling on Culture, Materiality, and Affect 3

62 affective and moral. Thus, place is constructed. Places become known through
63 reflection and the attention paid to the way we live our lives (Tuan, 2001).
64 However, some commentators have argued that place significance is increasingly
65 attenuated by globalization and technology, obscuring geographical and material
66 differences. For example, in response to neoliberal threats to the environment,
67 Escobar (1998:61) suggests that:

68 Unlike modern constructions, with their strict separation between biophysical, human, and
69 supernatural worlds, local models in many non-Western contexts are often predicated on
70 links of continuity between the three spheres and embedded in social relations that cannot be
71 reduced to modern, capitalist terms.

72 The suggestion is that critical and local social movements offer opportunities to
73 resist homogenization of “nature” and cultures. Neoliberal redefinitions of space are
74 also the target of Lefebvre’s (2003) argument that geographical space is at heart
75 social and therefore has several potential cultural meanings: perceived space as
76 unremarked everyday surroundings, conceived space as intended and managed by
77 those in positions of power, and lived space as transformed through personal and
78 social meaning. This third space, he suggests, allows new ways of being through
79 imagined alternatives. In a sense, self and space become merged in place through
80 dwelling, and this meaningful grounding of space can offer resistance to the habitual
81 or managed.
82 Moving beyond social construction, Thrift (1997) highlights the intended and
83 unintended in places and emphasizes embodied knowledge, where feeling, being,
84 and doing offer insight into place significance. Critical to how action unfolds,
85 attention to place and its affordances are deemed essential to its understanding.
86 Thrift (2004) draws attention to “a microbiopolitics of the subliminal, much of which
87 operates in the half-second delay between action and cognition, a microbiopolitics
88 which understands the kind of biological-cum-cultural gymnastics that takes place in
89 this realm” (p. 71).
90 This view gives place a partnership role and material importance in shaping
91 action. Nevertheless, Lewicka’s (2011) review of place attachment literature over
92 the last 40 years concludes that, of the three elements in Scannell and Gifford’s
93 (2010) model of place attachment, “person” has attracted disproportionately more
94 attention than “place” and “process.” In a similar vein, McKenzie (2008) considers
95 places of pedagogy in intersubjective experience but emphasizes that the source of
96 affect can often be mistakenly attributed. She writes:

97 Williams (1977) suggests that a structure of feeling is “a social experience which is still in AU2
98 process, often indeed not yet recognised as social but taken to be private, idiosyncratic, and
99 even isolating” (p. 132). Symptomatic of westernised cultural norms of individualisation and
100 isolation, this also suggests the ways in which much grappling with cultural formation is
101 experienced and attempted at the level of the “who of the subject.” (Biesta 1999)

102 However, if place itself was conceived as a melding of person and world, then the
103 dominance of discourses of individual difference and anthropocentrism might be
 4 S. Waite and J. Quay

104 disrupted. What if place is conceived as partner and agentic? In the following
105 vignette from case study research reported in more detail by Goodenough, Waite,
106 and Wright (submitted), we glimpse how affect and materiality together create
107 attachment to a specific place.

108 Amy had been visiting Fort Apache for about a year. She visited the wooded adventure
109 playground on the site of an old municipal tip primarily to “escape from being near my
110 sisters” who woke her up at night. Amy enjoyed being with her friends, making dens, and
111 getting warm by the fire. She made dens, “places you won’t see or think of,” in locations
112 along boundaries that are heavily walked and played in by young people. Fort Apache’s long
113 woodland edge at the top of its slopes ends abruptly against a wire fence separating it from a
114 grassed playing field. The fence supports bramble and ivy to spill over some shrubby
115 hawthorn, field maple, and elder, forming natural cubby holes that were frequently occupied
116 as ready-made dens; the ground underneath worn and plant-free through constant occupa-
117 tion. Amy, though acknowledging that she shared such spaces with others, was clear that she
118 used them to remove herself and “privately” experience her emotional mood.
119 That tree was there and you could sit down on it. And then you sit like if you were a bit
120 upset and you went to Fort Apache you could just go sit in there quietly.... there’s like loads
121 of little trails that go along there, along the top. . .you know where that big bush is there?...
122 There’s like this little hole in there. . .You can fit in there and if you actually get across you
123 can see right over. . .there’s a little cubby hole and you can see the tree house. . .Up there,
124 that little bush is part of my den as well; so that I can sit in there and have more quietness
125 and if it rains it won’t get me wet that much.
126 (Extract from Goodenough et al., submitted)

127 This extract may be interpreted to illustrate how the personal meanings for Amy are
128 stimulated in place, are inseparable from place, and are emplaced. She is in discourse
129 with place such that place seems to reach out to her while being simultaneously
130 shaped by the uses and passage of many young bodies in and through its material
131 presence. This physicality of sensations in place incorporates affective aspects that
132 may be understood to transcend the sociocultural, highlighting the need for further
133 theories which can accommodate this understanding.

134 In Place: Place-Based Education

135 Place is more commonly regarded as a partner when considered in the context of
136 play (Fjørtoft, 2001; Gandini 2012; Maxwell, Mitchell and Evans, 2008). Yet play is
137 but one way in which we learn, albeit the predominant mode in the early years. What
138 then is the role of place in later forms of education? There is considerable debate
139 about the extent to which contemporary schooling offers suitable preparation for the
140 wider world. Much current Western formal education happens within institutions
141 between the four walls of the classroom (Malone and Waite, 2016; Quay, 2015),
142 thereby discounting place as a significant contributor to the content of learning and
143 presenting the classroom as the privileged physical locus for schooling. In a similar
144 vein, there is also commentary about how much outdoor education is individualist,
145 universal, and generalist, in effect place-blind (Brookes, 2004). As both Park (2006)
146 and Stewart (2004) illustrate, a focus on a specific place may help to break down
 In Place(S): Dwelling on Culture, Materiality, and Affect 5

147 artificial boundaries between nature and culture in place-based education. They
148 advocate active engagement with the landscape to support this focus.
149 For Tuan, the material world appears to be a necessary but subordinate part of
150 experience in which the human is at the center. Tuan’s experiential perspective on
151 place sees place sensitivity as one route to self-knowledge, positioning “every
152 person . . . at the center of his world” (1977:41). Kolb (1984: 31) similarly under-
153 stood experiential learning as “describing the central process of human adaptation to
154 the social and physical environment.”
155 The term “experience” perhaps helps us to incorporate active relationship
156 between human and nonhuman and materialize the idea of culture to help appreciate
157 ways that place may suffuse learning. Elkjaer (2009: 80) argues that far from
158 experience being something of the past, it is also continuously in the present and
159 for the future, “Subjects are not passive spectators who look at the world from the
160 outside but powerful and future-oriented participants in natural and social worlds.”
161 She also suggests that experience happens when “habitual action and thinking are
162 disturbed and call for inquiry” (ibid.:86). This disturbance of the status quo fore-
163 shadows some creative possibilities of place.
164 Smith and Sobel (2010: viii) contend that place- and community-based education
165 offers an antidote for children “caught in an interior and electronically mediated
166 world, [who are] losing touch with both the society of flesh and blood humans and
167 the delicate natural world that supports our species.” The idea that the natural world
168 supports our species, however, suggests an instrumental view of place as existing for
169 human benefit (Davis, Rea and Waite, 2006), putting humankind in a position of
170 dominance and privilege. This person-centered focus is particularly evident in
171 literature associated with place attachment (Lewicka, 2011) such that place is often
172 understood as “my place.” Such centering around the individual may tend to
173 privilege the human and personal over the nonhuman and social.
174 On the other hand, a sense of belonging and ownership can foster community and
175 support social justice (Gruenewald, 2008), but “if place-based educators seek to
176 connect place with self and community, they must identify and confront the ways
177 that power works through places to limit the possibilities for human and non-human
178 others” (ibid: 315, emphasis added). In order to develop pro-environmental attitudes,
179 Kudryavtsev, Stedman, and Krasny (2012) suggest that a “sense of place – including
180 place meaning and place attachment – is shaped mainly through direct experiences in
181 places and indirect learning about places.” In the following case study excerpt, this
182 combined approach is taken.

183 The “Exmoor Curriculum,” based in Dulverton Middle and Community School with support
184 from the Exmoor National Park Authority and the Exmoor Society, builds upon the idea of
185 situation-specific and place-sensitive pedagogy. Children from years 5 to 8 at Dulverton
186 school engage in weekly 2-hour activities planned to offer progression in various educa-
187 tional themes connected to the local environment (Exmoor), including studies of habitats,
188 map work, and water skills. The place-based program is deliberately set within the chil-
189 dren’s local environment, and the design of the curriculum is intended to provide repeated
190 experiences over 4 years, building on developing knowledge and skills.
 6 S. Waite and J. Quay

191 One group of four boys, including one with autism, shows very good cooperation. The
192 Learning Support Assistant is very hands off, facilitating and letting them work out a way of
193 working together. She explains: “They know what to do because they are farmer’s sons.”
194 They eschew using scissors and unpick the thickly bound and knotted twine with nimble
195 fingers. They cooperate with different jobs, except for one in school uniform who isn’t
196 allowed to the muddy area. There is always someone dismantling and others ferrying and
197 sorting. Conversations are prompted by the task – different hay bales and the shapes and the
198 function that these perform (the round ones in plastic are not watertight but can be unrolled
199 like a toilet roll to get as much or as little as you need) (extract from field notes, shelter
200 dismantling, DMS Y5).
201 Binder twine is both a real and symbolic tie to some students’ home lives as children of
202 farmers. Their knowledge about this was respected and valued by the adults supporting the
203 observed activity of shelter dismantling. While carrying out the task, the students talked
204 knowledgeably about aspects of their surroundings, prompted by the materials they were
205 handling and at times the teacher/learner power relationship was more mutual.
206 (From Waite (2010))

207 In this vignette, we see how the current learning environment is connected to other
208 significant places for the children and that this is expressed materially as well as
209 through accumulated cultural practices. The study showed affective aspects such as
210 enjoyment of physically active learning and pride in having a unique curriculum, as
211 well as cognitive and emotionally enhanced awareness of their locality and its
212 particular biotic and abiotic features. However, the study also showed that this sort
213 of activity did not awaken sustainability attitudes to other places, which were
214 deemed “exotic” by the children nor did it provide a strong base for their subsequent
215 schooling in a larger community, where they were perceived by some as misfits and
216 “inbreds” (Waite, 2010: 30 and 37). The dominant culture there differed.

217 In Place: Situated Learning

218 Communities of practice are evidently highly situated. Elkjaer (2009), in her review
219 of Dewey’s contribution to theory of learning and the role of space and place, draws
220 attention to how practice is a key element and how this resonates in the work of Jean
221 Lave and Etienne Wenger on situated learning (Lave and Wenger, 1991). Here
222 learning is seen as induction into a community of practice. Learning is thus socially
223 constructed in the spaces between those experienced participants occupying the
224 center of the community and those with less experience at the periphery. This is a
225 very different positioning to that discussed by Tuan where the person was at the
226 center of their world, with attendant risks of individualist and anthropocentric
227 thinking. However, as Elkjaer (2009) points out, this process of movement toward
228 the expert seems reproductive of the norm and may not sit so easily with creativity
229 and innovation. Nor, perhaps, does it adequately account for and interweave the
230 material within places for learning; indeed, situated learning theory is widely used to
231 describe online communities (Waite and Pratt, 2015).
232 Although Lave (1988:1) points out that “cognition observed in everyday practice
233 is distributed – stretched over, not divided among – mind, body, activity and
234 culturally organized settings (which include other actors),” materiality of body and
 In Place(S): Dwelling on Culture, Materiality, and Affect 7

235 place is often ignored. In contrast to this emphasis on the social situatedness of
236 learning, Hinds and Sparks (2008, 2011) find distinct patterns of affective response
237 concomitant with the kind of places encountered: woodland or park, mountain, or
238 garden. These patterns indicate that place matters, supporting the idea that biophilic
239 tendencies are reinforced by childhood experiences. Waite and Pratt (2017) discuss
240 the usefulness of different lenses to think about learning, considering how the
241 concept of “situated learning” describes learning that happens across a community
242 of practice, a social perspective in which it is the nature of relationships between
243 actors that matter and not where this activity occurs, and an emphasis on the social
244 critiqued by Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989) among others. But the roots of
245 situated learning theory within particular communities have also spawned other
246 theorizations such as activity theory or CHAT (cultural-historical activity theory)
247 (Engeström, 1987; Seaman, 2007), as well as thinking that privileges place such as
248 the notion of learning in situ or place-based education. The latter enable accounts for
249 nonhuman participation and things as agentic but do not necessarily shift the focus
250 from the individual in the way that “alternative” theoretical frameworks such as
251 CHAT can help to illustrate how learning occurs as an indivisible part of continually
252 changing physical and social conditions rather than as a phenomenon located “in the
253 privacy of one’s own head” (Horwood, 1989: 6). Such an individualist view of
254 learning still predominates in mainstream schooling and is reflected in the assess-
255 ment and performance measures that structure and regulate many educational sys-
256 tems worldwide (Waite, Rutter, Fowle and Edwards-Jones, 2017).
257 This focus on attainment was taken into account in the design of some recent
258 research in the UK. The Natural Connections Demonstration Project worked with
259 125 schools to embed outdoor learning across the curriculum between 2012 and
260 2016 and was structured recognizing that most schools’ top priority is to support
261 children’s nationally assessed educational achievement, meaning that teachers were
262 supported in their work to address curriculum subjects but in local natural environ-
263 ments (Gilchrist, Passy, Waite and Cook, 2016). Ninety percent of responding
264 schools found outdoor learning useful for curriculum delivery, and the opportunities
265 they developed for learning in natural environments were particularly prevalent in
266 science, math, and English teaching, so-called high-stakes subjects measured for
267 school standards (Waite, Passy, Gilchrist, Hunt and Blackwell, 2016). According to
268 participating school teachers, subjects were supported through enhanced experience
269 and wonder, “I think it is hard to bring in the wonderment of science stuck in a
270 science lab for the whole year, whereas if you get outside you can give some people a
271 real ‘Oh my gosh!’”; creativity, “I will do a lot of stories based in the woodland,
272 using artefacts and natural objects. . .I’ve seen a real improvement in children’s
273 writing”; embodied learning of conceptual knowledge, “I know a lot of children
274 would have really struggled with grasping the concept of perimeters, but being able
275 to walk it out. . . made a lot more sense to them”; and making subjects authentic
276 through place-based enactments, “There is no way you could get the same sense of
277 belonging to the past doing it in the classroom or the hall. . . it’s just been amazing.”
278 This evidence clearly indicates the influence of affect and materiality of place on
279 learning, even when the focus and content of that learning is concentrated predom-
280 inately on attainment of curriculum objectives.
 8 S. Waite and J. Quay

281 However, place does not necessarily map well to curriculum objectives or
282 pedagogies of the classroom. In the following case study, taken from an Economic
283 and Social Research Council (ESRC) study of the role of outdoor learning in the
284 transition between early years and primary education, cultural belonging and mate-
285 rial features of place appear to complicate pedagogical understanding of place. The
286 study was funded by the ESRC over a period of 29 months. Its aim was to consider
287 the opportunities afforded by outdoor spaces to smoothing the transition to the
288 national curriculum.

289 Laura feels some trepidation in taking this Year 1 class outside. As a supply (i.e., substitute/
290 cover) teacher, she does not know the children very well although certain characters have
291 already been pointed out to her. The children gather around her on the carpet as she sets out
292 the plans for the lesson on Forces, looking for examples of pulls and pushes in the play park.
293 Nearly all the talking is done by the teacher. In fact, there are over 18 behavioral injunctions,
294 principally about how they should not behave, and several of these remarks are targeted at
295 the characters directly; seven teacher comments are about practical arrangements such as
296 who will hold the clipboard and pencil; a mere six relate to the substantive topic of the
297 activity, why they are going out to the play park and that they will need to put on their
298 “science hats.” The children are very excited about their trip.
299 In the play park, the children are in their assigned groups with a leader (chosen by the
300 teacher and indicated by possession of a clipboard), but they are pulled by the attractions of
301 play in this context that they associate so much with freedom. They debate if play is allowed.
302 One child says “we must be doing work, because I have a pencil.” Others are not so sure
303 and lark about, making the most of their surroundings. The leader adopts the teacher role
304 while trying to get them to cooperate in compiling a group list of pushes and pulls in the
305 environment. She herself has to be pushy to try to achieve this, but the interaction is very
306 unidirectional, as it was in the classroom beforehand. “If I see any silly behavior!” she
307 admonishes the boys throwing grass. Eventually, she calls on the teacher to reinforce
308 behavioral control in this ambiguous area. “Right,” says the teacher, “we’re coming
309 away from this play area because you’re all playing.” The child replies, “I’m not playing.
310 I’m just looking.” But the leader of the group rejoins, “You was playing.”
311 (Extract from Waite and Pratt (2017:14))

312 The question arises about whose place this is? What was intended for this conceived
313 space, and how do the place and people within it reconstitute its potential and
314 meanings as lived space (Lefebvre, 2003)? The cultural import of the local play
315 park for the teacher was very different to that for the children, and its features had
316 affordances that were not shared; therefore intended learning was obstructed (Waite,
317 2015). Place exists not just as special landscapes like national parks but also in the
318 scrubby Fort Apache woodland and a play park commandeered for schooling;
319 children and place comingle in less romantic settings too (Wattchow and Brown,
320 2011).

321 In Place: Childhood

322 In the light of widespread current concerns about children’s disconnection from
323 nature (Louv, 2010) and the growing popularity of ways to bring children back into
324 nature, it almost seems that babies are believed to be born outside of the wider
 In Place(S): Dwelling on Culture, Materiality, and Affect 9

325 ecological system (although clearly population growth is a significant factor in the
326 balance of nature). Kellert’s (2002) suggested nine values toward nature, which he
327 argues emerge during children’s development, attest to this belief that the beginning
328 of a life is characterized by a separation from nature.

329 1. Between age 3 and 6 years:

330 (a) Dominionistic – related to mastery of nature and physical control of it
331 (b) Negativistic – experienced as fear and alienation from nature
332 (c) Utilitarian – involving practical and material exploitation of nature
333 2. Between 7 and 12 years:
334 (a) Humanistic – exhibiting a strong emotional attachment to nature
335 (b) Aesthetic – appreciating the beauty of nature
336 (c) Symbolic – using nature for language development
337 (d) Scientific – systematic study of structure and functions of nature
338 3. Between 13 and 17 years:
339 (a) Moralistic – inspiring spiritual reverence and ethical concern for nature
340 (b) Naturalistic – direct experience and exploration of nature

341 Nevertheless, Davis et al. (2006) take issue with this framework, questioning the
342 notion that children’s engagement with nature only begins after the age of 3 and
343 problematizing the kinds and sequence of values identified. Mouthing of objects in
344 the material world is one of infants’ very first actions in their sensory approach to
345 make sense of the world. For example, eating soil is a very common pastime until
346 repeated “Yuck! Dirty!” adult exclamations train children away from this form of
347 “taking in” their world. Responses between 3 and 6 years are typified by a sense of
348 wonder and the young child’s attachment to familiar places and people. The values
349 claimed by Kellert (2002) as framing children’s initial engagement with nature rather
350 than being an original response to the nonhuman world seem influenced by signif-
351 icant adults modelling attitudes toward nature as they grow (Taylor and Blaise,
352 2014). Contemporary Western society continues to exploit natural resources, and
353 this attitude is more likely enculturated in children by our own example, rather than
354 being an early response to the nonhuman world.
355 The developmental frame may tend to set humankind outside of the ecological
356 world and deny our part in Earth’s wider ecosystems. Studies of very young children
357 point to an original sense of unity with the nonhuman world where boundaries of self
358 and other are initially absent (Rochat, 2003). A similar experience is recaptured in
359 moments of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) and the lived simple unity that Quay
360 (2017) draws upon in his concept of cultureplace; but perhaps some aspects of this
361 first simple unity are lost through subsequent learnt behaviors (Phenice and Griffore,
362 2003). Nonetheless, Rochat (2003) also argues that context causes us to oscillate
363 between different overall developmental stages of self/other awareness. In this way,
364 particular place contexts are again influential in mediating our relationship with
365 human and nonhuman other.
 10 S. Waite and J. Quay

366 In Place: The Anthropocene

367 In the previous sections, we have looked at some of the ways in which place and
368 learning in situ have been conceptualized. We have tried to draw attention to and
369 critique some taken-for-granted assumptions that appear to underpin the theories
370 discussed, including the continuing dominance of individualist, person-centered,
371 and anthropocentric attitudes toward how human and nonhuman relate within the
372 common world. From both psychological and sociological perspectives, the personal
373 and social are dominant discourses, but Prout (2011), MacNaghton and Urry (1998),
374 and Taylor and Giugni (2012), among others, have made considerable contributions
375 to disrupting these hegemonies.
376 Prout (2011) calls for more interdisciplinary work to avoid oversimplification and
377 bifurcation in thinking about what childhood is; for example, anthropology, philos-
378 ophy, and accounts of children’s geographies have all helped broaden psychological
379 developmental understandings. As Prout argues, “different combinations of human
380 and nonhuman elements can be treated as different partial, more or less stable,
381 orderings of childhood that can both overlap with and sustain each other – or,
382 indeed, that can come into conflict” (ibid.:10).
383 We mentioned earlier some disquiet about the idea of “my place”; this “my” has
384 become a common marketing tool for the environment as well as retail sector in the
385 UK in recognition of pervasive self-reference in contemporary society. Plumwood
386 (2008:147) expresses a similar concern that personalization encourages privileging
387 certain places at the potential expense of others, commenting “In the same way, in
388 the place case, I think we may have to start the process of recognising denied places
389 by owning multiplicity, envisioning a less monogamous ideal and more multiple
390 relationship to place.” This resonates with findings from the Exmoor Curriculum and
391 ESRC studies in this chapter.
392 Mutual construction by human and nonhuman is part of the process of engage-
393 ment with place, but Massey (2006: 46) notes that shifting the emphasis to the
394 landscape or place and reflecting that elements that we see as constant are also in flux
395 can help to redress uneven people-centered readings: “The reorientation stimulated
396 by the conceptualization of the rocks as on the move leads even more clearly to an
397 understanding of both place and landscape as events, as happenings, as moments that
398 will be again dispersed.” For Massey, the diminution of the human through temporal
399 stretching to geological time helps to put humans in place as a small part of the
400 whole.
401 However, despite our being only a small part of the whole, human impact on the
402 world has been and continues to be disproportionate, and Earth is now considered to
403 have entered a new geological epoch, referred to as the Anthropocene (Crutzen,
404 2002) to acknowledge humankind’s effects on the planet, enacted over a much
405 shorter time than previous geological periods. Not only is twenty-first century
406 society more rapidly changing and unpredictable, “nature” itself appears to have
407 been accelerated by human action. Blundell (2017: 10), in discussing the effects of
408 the Anthropocene on concepts of childhood, argues that:
 In Place(S): Dwelling on Culture, Materiality, and Affect 11

409 Through this coming together of Earth or natural time and human time the Anthropocene
410 proposes that rigid and dualistically separated notions of nature and human culture are
411 increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to sustain. Instead it invites a re-imagination of
412 the relationship between them as one of complex entanglement; so that, following Latour
413 (2004), it now makes sense to speak of the Earth system as comprising a diversity of nature-
414 culture hybrids rather than a non-negotiable ‘Nature’ with all its implied fixity.

415 Taylor and colleagues (Taylor and Giugni, 2012; Taylor and Blaise, 2014; Taylor,
416 Blaise and Giugni, 2013) further argue that it should prompt us to rethink relation-
417 ships between childhood and nature, pointing to a diversity of childhoods globally
418 combined with reified conceptualizations of nature. Homogenization of diversity is a
419 risk that the concept of childhoodnature potentially runs. At the same time, this work
420 has also highlighted intimate personal lived connections of children with the non-
421 human world, other than through the romantic historical lenses widely promoted in
422 popular Western literature. Their examples resonate with tacit and often visceral
423 ways that people/nature/place merge as documented from other disciplinary vantage
424 points, including notions of “being-in-place” (Tuan, 2001) and “becoming-speckled
425 warbler” (Stewart, 2011). In this interpretation, the particularity of place(s) becomes
426 more critical and entangled.

427 In Place: Cultureplace and Cultureplaces

428 It is clear that there have been many attempts to theorize how the more-than-human
429 world shapes possibilities for interaction in places and that these possibilities are
430 mediated by structural and cultural influences, whether recognized or hidden. Across
431 these attempts there seems to be a move toward what Macnaghten and Urry
432 (1998:167) describe as efforts to overcome “conventional distinctions between
433 humans and nature and between mind and matter.” Following Ingold (1993), they
434 refer to such tacit embodiment as “dwelling.” Dwelling also suggests a slowing of
435 pace, giving pause to think about how these are entangled and mutually influencing.
436 Dwelling, as Ingold (1993) acknowledges, is a phenomenological concept devel-
437 oped by Heidegger, whose philosophy is central to Quay’s (2013, 2015) ontological
438 perspective on education. In further work emanating from these phenomenological
439 roots, Quay (2017) argues that it is the various ways in which the notion of relation is
440 understood that confuses and therefore impedes the many attempts to theorize
441 relations between humans and nature adequately and thus between culture and place.
442 Quay draws on Peirce’s (1902) three forms of unity – synthetical, individual, and
443 simple – to highlight three forms of relation. These need to be described and thought
444 through carefully. Synthetical unity brings a myriad of things together as one in the
445 form of a totality or a universe, characterized relationally by interaction/transaction
446 between these things. An individual unity is different to a synthesis in that it suggests
447 a unity which is perceived as indivisible (the etymology of the word individual);
448 hence there are no parts constituting this individual which may be considered as one
449 individual among other individuals. A simple unity goes a step further in its sense of
 12 S. Waite and J. Quay

450 oneness and is phenomenological in character. Here there is no sense of synthesis or

451 individuality, as there are no parts perceived at all, and thus relation is not relevant as
452 it is assumed. A simple unity is a sense of wholeness that moves beyond the notion
453 of one as there are no divisions: all is “one” without any awareness that there is any
454 whole beyond this whole.
455 These three forms of unity and their corresponding forms of relation help with
456 understanding human-nature relationships, which are a focus of theorizing in out-
457 door education (Martin, 2004; Martin and Thomas, 2000). Human-nature relation-
458 ships embrace a synthetical unity: a totality of things held together in interaction/
459 transaction, like an ecosystem. However, this formulation of the issue – as human in
460 relation with nature and vice versa – is a specific type of synthesis as it approaches
461 the issue from a high vantage point, a bird’s eye view, in the sense that human and
462 nature are very general concepts, in which are understood differently by scientific
463 disciplines such as ecology and biology. Martin and Thomas attempt to overcome
464 this distance by referring to human-nature relationships as a form of interpersonal
465 relation. However, perhaps a better way to situate these relations – to socialize them
466 and materialize them locally – is to refer to them as cultureplace relations.
467 Cultureplace is also a synthetical unity but of a different type than human-nature
468 because it is more situated.
469 But what of the other two understandings of unity: individual unity and simple
470 unity? This requires taking a leap beyond a synthetical unity of things classified as
471 human and/or nature. To express this, Quay (2017) uses the term “cultureplace” with
472 no hyphen. We live, here and now, in cultureplace, as simple unity. In this simple
473 unity, everything already makes sense: it is everydayness, ordinariness, and mun-
474 daneness – of the flavor, of the aesthetic, and of the particular cultureplace. However,
475 we can also be aware, thinking reflectively about it, that this simple unity is an
476 individual unity: it is one simple unity among others; it is one indivisible
477 cultureplace among other indivisible cultureplaces. We can name such cultureplaces
478 as places: classroom, train station, and park, but when we do so, we must also
479 acknowledge that they are also cultures – student or teacher (classroom), commuter
480 or conductor (train station), player or ranger (park), and swimmer or sunbaker
481 (beach) – as examples. These cultures and places are together as cultureplaces.
482 Student culture in a classroom place = studentclassroom = cultureplace. Thus, the
483 truth of a cultureplace is experiential as lived simple unity. This is the phenomeno-
484 logical concept of dwelling.
485 Continuing with this example, these three forms of unity are accessible in
486 thought: as synthetical unity (human-nature) from a high vantage point using
487 reflective/abstract thinking and general concepts – such as classroom, student, and
488 teacher – all meant in a general sense; as synthetical unity (cultureplace) at a more
489 situated level using reflective/concrete thinking and more particular concepts, such
490 as classroom, student, and teacher, all meant in a specific sense as this school or that
491 school, etc.; as an individual unity (cultureplace) such as the cultureplace of
492 studentclassroom or teacherclassroom, such that we are aware studentclassroom is
493 one among other versions of cultureplace and different to teacherclassroom; and also
494 as a simple unity (cultureplace), in a phenomenological or affective way of thinking,
 In Place(S): Dwelling on Culture, Materiality, and Affect 13

495 which is the everydayness of the ongoing, present, but unnamed, living moment.
496 This last form of unity is perhaps the most important to be aware of, as all the other
497 forms depend on it. This is the living experience which we call on to experientially
498 understand the other concepts. It is very difficult to fully capture in language,
499 highlighting how terms such as studentclassroom are very much approximations
500 as labels when applied to an individual indivisible cultureplace – while pointing to
501 something much richer that requires more poetic language to convey.
502 It is the subtle distinction between cultureplace as an individual unity and
503 cultureplace as a simple unity which contributes the most to understanding and
504 analysis here. As an individual unity, different cultureplaces may be seen to inhabit
505 the one space, coming into contact in various ways – such as conflicts between
506 different users of a park. As we saw in the ESRC example, the park is a place, but the
507 notion of cultureplace highlights how this place holds diverse possibilities for action
508 amidst multiple, sometimes conflicting, meanings. It is actually a collection of
509 different cultureplaces such as playerpark or teacherpark or birdwatcherpark or
510 footballerpark. Alternatively, cultureplaces may be transportable from one particular
511 spatial location to another. Playerpark might occur as an experience in a range of
512 locations, which we would generally describe in place terms as parks.

513 In Place: Cultural Density

514 Waite (2013) accounts for this complexity of different cultureplaces and the power
515 struggles that may occur between them in her theory of cultural density, based on
516 Bourdieu’s ideas about habitus (Bourdieu, 2002). Casey (2001:686) observes that a
517 “given habitus is always enacted in a particular place and incorporates the features
518 inherent in previous such places, all of which are linked by a habitudinal bond”; this
519 is akin to Quay’s simple unity. For Waite, “cultural density refers to the strength and
520 composition of dispositions to practice and norms of behaviour embedded within
521 places that mediate the possibilities for action of individuals within them” (Waite,
522 2013:414). Quay’s multiple cultureplaces may coexist, but structural forces such as
523 power, politics, and society constrain some and privilege others through cultural
524 density restricting some participants’ room for agency and the ways that cultureplace
525 is lived. For this reason, awareness and examination through different vantage points
526 of individual cultureplaces may be necessary to deconstruct the lived experience and
527 critically examine how power works within these.
528 Cultural practices and concomitant place meanings lie at the heart of this concept,
529 but these are seen as thick and structurally determining within some cultureplaces or
530 unrecognized and light within others, although this lightness may well also be
531 differentially perceived by individuals. The concept of differing “densities” – thicker
532 or lighter – provides a metaphorical correspondence that helps to convey this type of
533 difference between cultureplaces. In this way when many cultureplaces coincide,
534 denser cultureplaces push lighter cultureplaces to the margins to the extent that they
535 may not be able to coexist. An example is the (broadly labelled) studentclassroom
536 cultureplace of some children who do not connect with a mainstream vision of
 14 S. Waite and J. Quay

537 schooling and for whom school life presents a struggle as they navigate conflicts
538 with a more mainstream and much denser studentclassroom cultureplace that is
539 co-constructed and congruent with teacherclassroom. In another extension of this
540 metaphor, the relational bonds that tie alternative cultureplaces to “schooling” can be
541 described as weak. New contexts for learning outside the classroom may enable the
542 development of new cultureplaces that do not rely on established relations. Density
543 also alludes to the process of sedimentation, whereby practices in places are
544 reproduced and cemented over time, as the pressure of “we have always done it/been
545 this way” bears down. Bourdieu’s concept of cultural reproduction of social inequal-
546 ities underpins this sense of density. Furthermore, it signals a level of structural
547 rigidity in effecting transformation of cultureplaces because there is little or no room
548 for agency through new thinking or actions within such a dominant and dense
549 cultureplace. Thus, cultural density in some cases might unhelpfully be equated
550 with a sense of “destiny” or inevitability.
551 In linking cultureplace(s) and cultural density, emplaced habitus and normative
552 practices become more open to attention. As place (as timespace) and its cultural
553 density are moved toward the center, multiple cultureplaces can be considered in the
554 light of how densely they occupy and shape possibilities for action and the power
555 relations that determine the “given habitus . . . enacted in a particular place.” Physical
556 and material signifiers inform how places are interpreted as more or less dense by
557 people within them. For example, the whiteboard at the front and chairs more or less
558 oriented toward the teacher’s usual seat reinforce the cultural density and power
559 relationships of the classroom. More open-ended learning resources in woodland, in
560 contrast, may facilitate greater diversity in childforest encounters.
561 If we think back to the play park vignette, that place was redolent with experi-
562 ences of playing on the swings and seesaw for the local children; it was a culturally
563 dense cultureplace in terms of their playful engagement with the material
564 affordances of that environment. Conversely, the supply teacher was from outside
565 the neighborhood, and for her, this particular play park held few previous connota-
566 tions. Indeed, as a teacher she viewed the play park as not much more than a blank
567 slate: it was culturally light, apparently available to be colonized. She brought the
568 culturally dense cultureplace of teacherclassroom to bear on what for the children
569 was a play park cultureplace. In her attempt to bend the place to the purposes of
570 schooling in a lesson on forces with clipboards, we witnessed how the enmeshed
571 child/culture/place resisted practice that contravened the cultural density of that
572 cultureplace for them.
573 By shifting to consciousness of individual cultureplace unities and considering
574 multiple cultureplaces and cultural density, the tensions between them can be
575 recognized, and the potential to disrupt previously held values and beliefs or
576 hegemonic practices may be enhanced. In this way, consideration of multiple
577 cultural densities associated with cultureplaces will enable their meanings and
578 consequences to be made more visible and inform action. Cultural blindness leading
579 to social injustices represents a clear danger if cultural densities and lived
580 cultureplaces remain unexamined. Regarding conceptualization of childhoodnature,
 In Place(S): Dwelling on Culture, Materiality, and Affect 15

581 these theoretical approaches may help acknowledge and shift attention to children’s
582 particular affective, social, and material meanings in place(s).

583 In Cultureplaces with Cultural Densities: Implications

584 for the Enactment of Outdoor Learning

585 The foregoing discussions combine to show that being “in place(s)” is a concept
586 which has a long but rather complicated history. It seems a widespread, stubborn,
587 and enduring foible that we privilege human-centric perspectives and pervasively
588 cling to individualist (as an individual person) and developmental views in Western
589 conceptualization and structures of childhood and schooling. In concluding this
590 chapter, we consider some possible reasons and implications for this but also venture
591 that feelings and affect, which appear to underpin a sense of flow and being in simple
592 unity within cultureplace, may indeed act as useful intrapersonal organizers of this
593 complex interplay of cultural and material influences.
594 Patently, people do transfer experiences of places and use these as ways to
595 evaluate other places. Sue recalls on a road trip in New Zealand rounding a tight
596 corner where a couple were taking a picture of a stunning landscape with a safety
597 barrier in the foreground and commenting that their chosen view was “a bit rubbish,”
598 instantaneously comparing that view to the many extraordinarily beautiful views
599 encountered while travelling through the country. Where did this dismissive com-
600 ment come from? A lack of cultural density in the cultureplace in which these
601 tourists dwelt at the time – a cultureplace that could be described as touristscenery
602 – positioned the meaning of this particular landscape as not scenic. Yet for the couple
603 taking the shot, it might have more meaning and affect. This illustrates how reflexes
604 and feelings are important non-cognitive mediators even in culturally light encoun-
605 ters and how easily, without consideration of alternative cultureplaces and cultural
606 densities, we may be dismissive and partial.
607 Affect also framed the way in which the 3-year Exmoor Curriculum was valued,
608 making the children feel proud to have that unique opportunity, although positive
609 feelings about it were not universally shared. Cultural density linked to that partic-
610 ular cultureplace clashed with needs in later stages of their lives. In another context,
611 the emplaced joy and wonder noted by the children and teachers in the Natural
612 Connections Demonstration Project were considered instrumental in making an
613 impact on their attitudes toward learning. Creating new outdoor cultureplaces for
614 learning had extended the possibilities for learning to a wider group of students that
615 the cultural density of schooling had sometimes failed.
616 The reason that recognizing contingent affect and feelings is so important is partly
617 because this underpins care for places though positive individual and communal
618 experiences while enabling a more responsive alignment of place with educational
619 purposes and pedagogies. Taking into account what a space means to different
620 parties as a place – lived as cultureplaces – helps to build upon previous experiences
621 and funds of knowledge in a fruitful way, but it also provides a lens with which to
622 consider afresh the needs and affordances of the place itself. What multiple
 16 S. Waite and J. Quay

623 cultureplaces occupy this physical space? Which create the greatest cultural density?
624 How does their materiality shape this? How does power flow within and between
625 cultureplaces within this place? This sort of multifaceted analysis requires that we
626 put ourselves in other positions to better understand complex elements within the
627 whole, thus “becoming cultureplace” by dwelling in other cultureplaces: in place.
628 Furthermore, it is precisely this empathic ability that offers some hope for rejecting
629 human dominion over nature (Davis et al., 2006; Taylor and Giugni, 2012;
630 Goodenough et al., submitted), if we can recognize that materiality is implicit within
631 cultural density and transformational “becoming cultureplace” must include the
632 more-than-human.
633 Malone and Waite’s (2016: 22) framework for desirable twenty-first century
634 outcomes from outdoor learning includes empathy and care for the human world
635 among five key themes. However, in recognition that educational policy still focuses
636 on the child as the principal unit of analysis for success, this framework seeks to
637 outline student outcomes that will address contemporary concerns. Although this
638 breakdown delineating policy, research, and practice contexts represents a refine-
639 ment of targeting and alignment in comparison to many previous outdoor learning
640 and education models, further nuance about the detail of local cultureplaces is
641 necessary to translate these themes into effective place-sensitive practices
642 underpinned by appropriate theories of change. What practice contexts will look
643 like and what places will offer appropriate cultural density or lightness to support
644 educational aims will depend on sociocultural and material contingencies (Table 1).
645 In this chapter we have drawn together complex theorizations of place and
646 childhood to reveal how two particular and complementary theories might be used
647 to help us understand how children and nature are in relationship, with a particular
648 focus on the implications for educational practice. The hope is that these theories AU3
649 may support a deeper engagement with the strategic questions that support planning
650 outdoor learning through acknowledgment of these enmeshed influences – strategic
651 questions that focus on purpose (what? why?), place (where?), pedagogy (how?),
652 and people (who?), as set out in a recent chapter with O’Brien, Ambrose-Oji, Waite,
653 Aronsson and Tighe-Clarke (2016: 54–55).
654 These strategic questions help to structure our thinking to include the personal,
655 the process, and the place (Scannell and Gifford, 2010), holding them in unity as
656 synthetic, individual, or simple whole (Quay, 2017) and coupling them with clarity
657 about specific aims for taking learning outside the classroom. Concentration of
658 attention on differing cultural densities (Waite, 2013) and the intrapersonal meanings
659 of places for partners (Prout, 2011) within the whole opens up the creative possibil-
660 ities of cultureplace(s). In this way affective, precognitive, emplaced, and material
661 feelings can make a key contribution to the power of outdoor learning to transform
662 lives. AU4
 In Place(S): Dwelling on Culture, Materiality, and Affect 17

t:1 Table 1 A framework for student outcomes and natural schooling

The practice context
The research context How
t:2 The policy context Why (outdoor learning
What (evidence/research/ literature/ form/place/
(themes /desired student outcomes) theory) pedagogies/people)
t:3 Theme 1: Encouraging healthy Role of green restorative theory/ Experiential
bodies and positive lifestyles ADHD/anxiety/depression learning in natural
desired student outcome: Active bodies/motor skills/ settings
a healthy and happy body and mind physical fitness/skills Outdoor education/
development learning
Healthy foods/gardening LOTC
Outdoor living skills Vegetable gardens
t:4 Theme 2: Developing social, Human social relations Problem-based
confident, and connected people Independent and critical thinking learning
Desired student outcome: skills Project-based
a sociable confident person Problem-solving pedagogies
Social development Social learning
Resilience-building Residential
programs
t:5 Theme 3: Stimulating self-regulated Taking responsibility for own Inquiry learning
and creative learning learning Self-directed
Desired student outcome: Self-regulation/self-awareness learning
a self-directed creative learner Self-management, self-efficacy “Adventurous”
Curiosity/inquiry education
Creativity Play pedagogies
Wild free – Nature
play
Cross-curricular and
interdisciplinary
learning
STEAM outside
t:6 Theme 4: Supporting effective Team building Adventure
contributions and collaboration Leadership skills, development education
Desired student outcome: Risk assessment/taking Residential
An effective contributor calculated risks programs
Innovator/entrepreneur Problem-based
Responsible decision-making, learning
social resilience, collaboration Team building
skills Field trips
Service learning
t:7 Theme 5: Underpinning care and Appreciation of national and ESD/EE
action for others and the natural heritage Geography and
environment Understanding issues of science field trips
Desired student outcome: globalization, cultural diversity, Global education
An active global citizen and sustainable futures Indigenous studies
Environmental stewardships International studies
Volunteerism Animal husbandry
Empathy/care for more-than- Place-based
human world learning
Active environmental citizenry
Contributing to planetary issues
 18 S. Waite and J. Quay

663 References
664 Blundell, D. (2017). Nature, childhood and the Anthropocene. Educational. Futures, 8(1), 3–18.
665 Bourdieu, P. (2002). Habitus. In J. Hillier & E. Rooksby (Eds.), Habitus: A sense of place
666 (pp. 27–34). Aldershot: Ashgate.
667 Brookes, A. (2004). Astride a long dead horse: Mainstream outdoor education theory and the central
668 curriculum problem. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 8(2), 22–33.
669 Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
670 Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–41.
671 Casey, E. S. (2001). Between geography and philosophy: What does it mean to be in the place-
672 world? Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91(4), 683–693.
673 Crutzen, P. J. (2002). Geology of mankind. Nature, 415, 23.
674 Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper and
675 Row.
676 Davis, B., Rea, T., & Waite, S. (2006). The special nature of the outdoors: Its contribution to the
677 education of children aged 3–11. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 10(2), 3–12.
678 Elkjaer, B. (2009). Pragmatism: A learning theory for the future. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary
679 theories of learning: Learning theorists in their own words (pp. 74–89). Abingdon: Routledge.
680 Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental
681 research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
682 Escobar, A. (1998). Whose knowledge, whose nature? Biodiversity, conservation and the political
683 ecology of social movements. Journal of Political Ecology, 5, 53–82.
684 Fjørtoft, I. (2001). The natural environment as playground for children: The impact of outdoor play
685 activities in pre-primary schoolchildren. Environmental Education, 29(2), 111–117.
686 Gandini, L. (2012). Connecting through caring and learning spaces. In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, &
687 G. Forman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children. The Reggio Emilia experience in
688 transformation (3rd ed.). Santa Barbara: Praeger.
689 Gilchrist, M., Passy, R., Waite, S., & Cook, R. (2016). Exploring schools’ use of outdoor spaces. In
690 C. Freeman & P. Tranter (Eds.), Risk, protection, provision and policy (Vol. 12 of T. Skelton
691 (Ed.) Geographies of children and young people). Singapore: Springer.
692 Goodenough, A., Waite, S., & Wright, N. (submitted for review). Place as partner: Material and
693 affective intra-play between young people and trees. Children’s Geographies.
694 Gruenewald, D. A. (2008). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Environmental
695 Education Research, 14(3), 308–324.
696 Hinds, J., & Sparks, P. (2008). Engaging with the natural environment: The role of affective
697 education and identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 109–120.
698 Hinds, J., & Sparks, P. (2011). The affective quality of human-natural environment relationships.
699 Evolutionary Psychology, 9(3), 451–469.
700 Horwood, B. (1989). Reflections on reflection. The Journal of Experimental Education, 12(2), 5–9.
701 Ingold, T. (1993). The temporality of the landscape. World Archaeology, 25, 152–174.
702 Kellert, S. R. (2002). Experiencing nature: Affective, cognitive and evaluative development in
703 children. In P. H. Kahn & S. R. Kellert (Eds.), Children and nature: Psychological, sociocul-
704 tural and evolutionary investigations (pp. 117–151). London: MIT.
705 Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
706 Kudryavtsev, A., Stedman, R. C., & Krasny, M. E. (2012). Sense of place in environmental
707 education. Environmental Education Research, 18(2), 229–250.
708 Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
709 Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge,
710 UK: Cambridge University Press.
711 Lefebvre, H. (2003). The urban revolution. Minneapolis: University of |Minneapolis Press.
712 Lewicka, M. (2011). Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? Journal of
713 Environmental Psychology, 31, 207–231.
714 Louv, R. (2010). Last child in the woods. New York: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill.
 In Place(S): Dwelling on Culture, Materiality, and Affect 19

715 Macnaghten, P., & Urry, J. (1998). Contested natures. London: SAGE.
716 Malone, K., & Waite, S. (2016). Student outcomes and natural schooling: Pathways from evidence
717 to impact report. Plymouth: Plymouth University. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3327.7681.
718 Retrieved from: https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/uploads/production/document/path/6/6811/Stu
719 dent_outcomes_and__natural_schooling_pathways_to_impact_2016.pdf
720 Martin, P. (2004). Outdoor adventure in promoting relationships with nature. Australian Journal of
721 Outdoor Education, 8(1), 20–28.
722 Martin, P., & Thomas, G. (2000). Interpersonal relationships as a metaphor for human–nature
723 relationships. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 5(1), 39–46.
724 Massey, D. (2006). Landscape as provocation: Reflections on moving mountains. Journal of
725 Material Culture, 11(1/2), 33–48.
726 Maxwell, L. E., Mitchell, M. R., & Evans, G. W. (2008). Effects of play equipment and loose parts
727 on preschool children’s outdoor play behavior: An observational study and design intervention.
728 Children, Youth and Environments, 18(2), 36–63.
729 McKenzie, M. (2008). The places of pedagogy: Or, what can we do with culture through intersub-
730 jective experiences. Environmental Education Research, 143, 361–373.
731 O’Brien, L., Ambrose-Oji, B., Waite, S., Aronsson, J., & Tighe, M. (2016). Learning on the move:
732 Green exercise for children and young people. In J. Barton, R. Bragg, C. Wood, & J. Pretty
733 (Eds.), Green exercise: Linking nature, health and well-being (pp. 53–68). Oxford: Routledge/
734 Taylor & Francis.
735 Park, G. (2006). Theatre country: Essays on landscape and whenua. Wellington: Victoria Univer-
736 sity Press.
737 Peirce, C. S. (1902). Unity. In J. M. Baldwin (Ed.), Dictionary of philosophy and psychology, Vol II
738 (pp. 734–736). New York: Macmillan.
739 Phenice, L. A., & Griffore, R. J. (2003). Young children and the natural world. Contemporary
740 Issues in Early Childhood, 4(2), 167–171.
741 Plumwood, V. (2008). Shadow places and the politics of dwelling. Australian Humanities Review,
742 44, 139–150. Retrieved from: http://www.australianhumanitiesreview.org/archive/Issue-March-
743 2008/plumwood.html
744 Prout, A. (2011). Taking a step away from modernity: Reconsidering the new sociology of
745 childhood. Global Studies of Childhood, 1(1), 4–14.
746 Quay, J. (2013). Education, experience and existence: Engaging Dewey, Peirce and Heidegger.
747 Abingdon: Routledge.
748 Quay, J. (2015). Understanding life in school: From academic classroom to outdoor education.
749 New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
750 Quay, J. (2017). From human–nature to Cultureplace in education via an exploration of Unity and
751 Relation in the work of Peirce and Dewey. Studies in the Philosophy of Education, 36, 463–476.
752 Rochat, P. (2003). Five levels of self-awareness as they unfold early in life. Consciousness and
753 Cognition, 12, 717–731.
754 Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2010). Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework.
755 Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 1–10.
756 Seaman, J. (2007). Taking things into account: Learning as kinaesthetically mediated collaboration.
757 Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 7(1), 3–20.
758 Smith, G. A., & Sobel, D. (2010). Place and community-based education in schools. Abingdon:
759 Routledge.
760 Stewart, A. (2004). Decolonising encounters with the Murray River: Building place responsive
761 outdoor education. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 8(2), 46–55.
762 Stewart, A. (2011). Becoming-speckled warbler: Re/creating Australian natural history pedagogy.
763 Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 27(1), 68–80.
764 Taylor, A., & Blaise, M. (2014). Queer worlding childhood. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural
765 Politics of Education, 35(3), 377–392.
 20 S. Waite and J. Quay

766 Taylor, A., Blaise, M., & Giugni, M. (2013). Haraway’s ‘bag lady storytelling’: Relocating
767 childhood and learning within a ‘post-human landscape’. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural
768 Politics of Education, 34(1), 48–62.
769 Taylor, A., & Giugni, M. (2012). Common Worlds: reconceptualising inclusion in early childhood
770 communities. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 13(2). Retrieved from: www.wwwords.
771 co.uk/CIEC.
772 Thrift, N. (1997). The rise of soft capitalism. In A. Herod, S. Roberts, & G. Toal (Eds.), An unruly
773 world? Globalisation and space (pp. 25–68). London: Routledge.
774 Thrift, N. (2004). Intensities of feeling: Toward a spatial politics of affect. Geografiska Annaler, 86,
775 57–78.
776 Tuan, Y. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis: University of
777 Minnesota Press.
778 Tuan, Y. (2001). Life as a field trip. Geographical Review, 91(1–2), 41–45.
779 Waite, S. (2010). Contribution of the Exmoor Curriculum to Rural Young People’s Educational
780 Achievement and Environmental Awareness. Final Report for Exmoor National Park Authority
781 Sustainable Development Fund (January 2010) Plymouth: Plymouth University.
782 Waite, S. (2013). Knowing your place in the world: How place and culture support and obstruct
783 educational aims. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(4), 413–433.
784 Waite, S. (2015). Culture clash and concord: Supporting early learning outdoors in the
785 UK. In H. Prince, K. Henderson, & B. Humberstone (Eds.), International handbook of outdoor
786 studies. London: Routledge.
787 Waite, S., Passy, R., Gilchrist, M., Hunt, A. & Blackwell, I. (2016). Natural Connections Demon-
788 stration Project 2012–2016: Final report. Natural England Commissioned report NECR215.
789 Retrieved from: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6636651036540928.
790 Waite, S., & Pratt, N. (2015). Situated learning (learning in situ). In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International
791 encyclopaedia for the social and behavioural sciences (Vol. 22, 2nd ed., p. 5012). Oxford:
792 Elsevier. ISBN:9780080970868.
793 Waite, S., & Pratt, N. (2017). Theoretical perspectives on learning outside the classroom –
794 Relationships between learning and place. In S. Waite (Ed.), Children learning outside the
795 classroom: From birth to eleven (pp. 7–22). London: SAGE.
796 Waite, S., Rutter, O., Fowle, A., & Edwards-Jones, A. (2017). Diverse aims, challenges and
797 opportunities for assessing outdoor learning: A critical examination of three cases from practice.
798 Education 3–13, 45(1), 51–67.
799 Wattchow, B., & Brown, M. (2011). A pedagogy of place: Outdoor education for a changing world.
800 Clayton: Monash University Press.
Index Terms:

Affect 2–3, 7, 15
Conceived space 3
Cultural densities 2, 13–16
Culture 3, 5, 11–12, 14
Cultureplace 2, 9, 11–13, 15–16
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) 8, 13
Embodied knowledge 3
Individual unity 11–12
Lived space 3
Materiality 4, 6–7, 16
Outdoor learning 2, 7, 16
Perceived space 3
Place
Anthropocene 9–11
childhood 8–9
cultural density 13–15
cultureplace 11
place-based education 4–6
self and social space 2–4
situated learning 6–8
Simple unity 11–12
Synthetical unity 11
 Author Queries
Chapter No.: 13-1 427621_0_En

Query Refs. Details Required Author's response

AU1 Please be aware that your name and yes, OK
affiliation and if applicable those of
you co-author(s) will be published as
presented in this proof. If you want to
make any changes, please correct the
details now. Note that corrections
after publication will no longer be
possible.
see below
AU2 Please provide details of Williams
(1977), Biesta (1999), Latour (2004)
in the reference list.
AU3 Please check if edit to sentence yes, OK
starting “The hope is. . .” is okay.
AU4 Please provide sections “Conclusion” see below
and “Cross-References.”

Note:
If you are using material from other works please make sure that you have obtained the necessary
permission from the copyright holders and that references to the original publications are included.

Williams, R. (1977). Marxism and literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Biesta, G. (1999). Radical intersubjectivity: Reflections on the “different” foundations of
education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 18, 203–220.
Latour, B. (2004). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.

"Conclusion" heading inserted at line 645.

Cross reference can be made to:
Section 3 Cultural, Political and Wild Perspectives of ChildhoodNature,
Section 8 ChildhoodNature Pedagogies & Place
Section 9 ChildhoodNature Ecological Aesthetics & the Learning Environment.