This article has focused on revealing teacher’s views and expectations of the playful learning environment, its use and technologies. It is not particularly surprising, that educators’ expectations relate to teachability, playability and learnability. The pre-primary and basic school educators would welcome an outdoor learning environment and they regard it mostly from children’s perspective. One reason for this point of view is that the PLE is expected to get children motivated in activities, act collaboratively, enjoy and feel good at school, which is not always obvious today. As Veen and Vrakking (2006) mention, the children, their culture and their behaviour and cognitive processes have changed but the school has not responded to these changes.
Teachers need to respond to these changes as well. Playfulness as a personal trait is characteristic of teachers, who come up with innovations and use them readily in teaching like any other tools available in the school. Playfulness correlates strongly with features of innovation, creation and courage (Dunn, 2004). In other words, creative persons have a playful approach to solutions and always look for new angles and affordances (Glaxton et al., 2006). Although teachers in this study proved to be playful for the most part, many teachers are not, finding it good and secure to adhere to familiar routines (Dunn, 2004). This should be kept in mind in evaluating teachability in the context of PLEs and technologies.
Therefore, instead of considering the effectiveness of the system, the emphasis should be on supportive manners, on the user’s experiences (Laakkonen & Isomäki, 2005), and determining how satisfied users are when starting to use the PLE and implementing teaching and learning processes.
Technologies change the way we act and learn (Säljö, 2004; Veen & Vrakking, 2006) and PLEs will reshape the future of learning and the culture of playing. Although technologies are important and needed, and the PLE is assumed to be powerful, they will not improve learning in any linear sense. What is important in the current context is how teachers and children engage in activities and how they use the environment or technologies. Technologies and environments,
like other tools, are sometimes productive, but sometimes rather useless (Säljö, 2004). How usable and learnable the PLE is, however, should be evaluated in practice. Tentative studies and assessment have already been done, in which the goal was to find ways to increase physical activity in the form of games in the school context. The study demonstrates that the outdoor PLE can be used successfully for that purpose. (Kangas, et al., accepted)
The view brought to light in this study is both positive and challenging. Teacher’s expectations relate to a vision of playful learning as Price et al. (2003) see it: (informational) artefacts involve fun, and the boundaries between play and learning get blurred. The teachers’ views and expectations of the PLE are essential in order to identify the requirements that educators set for the PLE. In addition, their views are needed in designing pedagogically meaningful content for PLEs and in developing PLP that meet the challenges of the future school. Future research will investigate teachers’
expectations to determine how closely they correspond to reality and how their experiences with actual PLEs correlate with the concepts of teachability, playability and learnability. In addition, more emphasis should be put on collaboration and peer culture and the Homo zappiens that challenge traditional educational systems. If education has always been about preparing individuals for their role in society (Veen & Vrakking, 2006, 121), we should critically consider society and ask what kinds of roles are needed there.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the support from the Let’s Play project (2003–2006), the Doctoral Programme for Multidisciplinary Research on Learning Environments (2006–2007) and the InnoPlay project (2007–2008).
References
Bodrova, E. & Leong, D. J. (2001). The tools of the mind project: a case study of implementing the Vygotskian approach in American early childhood and primary classrooms. Geneva, Switzerland: International bureau of Education, UNESCO.
Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (2003a). Chopsticks and counting chips: Do play and foundational skills need to compete for the teacher’s attention in an early childhood classroom? Young Children, 58(3), 10–17.
Bodrova, E. & Leong, D. J. (2003b). The importance of being playful. Educational Leadership, 60 (7), 50–54.
Broström, S. (1996). Frame play with 6-year-old children. European Early Childhood Research Journal, 4(1), 89–
101.
Burkitt, I. (1999). Bodies of thought: Embodiment, identity and modernity. London: Sage.
Clements, R. (2004). An investigation of the status of outdoor play. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 5(1), 68–80.
Crossley, M. L. (2003). Introducing narrative psychology: Self, trauma and the construction of meaning. Philadelphia:
Open University Press.
Decortis, F. & Rizzo, A. (2002). New active tools for supporting narrative structure. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 6(5–6), 416–429.
Dunn, L. (2004). Cognitive playfulness and other characteristics of educators who make enduring changes. In L. Cantoni
& C. McLoughlin (Eds.) Proceedings Ed-Media 2004 World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia &
Telecommunications, 3553–3560.
Glaser, B.G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. California: Sociology Press.
Glaxton, G., Edwards, L., Scale-Constantinou, V. (2006). Cultivating creative mentalities: A framework for education.
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1, 57–61.
Hirose, N. (2002). An ecological approach to embodiment and cognition. Cognitive Systems Research, 3, 289–299.
Hyvönen, P. Teacher’s views on playing in the school context. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Hyvönen, P. & Kangas, M. (2007). From bogey mountains to funny houses: Children’s desires for play environment.
To appear in the Australian Journal of Early Childhood.
Hyvönen, P. & Ruokamo, H. (2005). The features of playfulness in the pedagogical model of TPL – tutoring, playing and learning. In H. Ruokamo, P. Hyvönen, M. Lehtonen & S. Tella (Eds.) Teaching-Studying-Learning (TSL) Processes and Mobile Technologies - Multi-, Inter- and Transdisciplinary (MIT) Research Approaches. Proceedings of the 12th International Network-Based Education (NBE) Conference 2005, 103–113.
Hyvönen, P., Kangas, M., Kultima, A. & Latva, S. (2006). Tutkimuksia leikillisistä oppimisympäristöistä. Rovaniemi:
Lapin yliopistopaino.
Jennings, K. (2005). Hyperscore: A case study in computer mediated music composition. Education and Information Technologies, 10(3), 225–238.
Jonassen, D. H. (2002). Learning as activity. Educational Technology, March-April, 45–51.
Kangas, M., Hyvönen, P. & Latva, S. Space Treasure in the Playful Learning Environment: Experiences and assessment. Paper accepted to The NBE2007 conference.
Kansanen, P., Tirri, K., Meri, M., Krokfors, L., Husu, J. & Jyrhämä, R. (2000). Teachers’ pedagogical thinking.
theoretical landscapes, practical challenges. New York: Lang.
Kennewell, S. & Morgan, A. (2006). Factors influencing learning through play in ICT settings. Computers and Education, 46, 265–279.
Kähkönen, M. & Ovaska, S. (2006). Initial observations on children and online instructions. Proceeding of the 2006 conference on Interaction design and children IDC ‘06. ACM Press, 93–96.
Loukaitoi-Sideris, A. (2003). Children’s common grounds. A study of intergroup relations among children in public settings. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(2), 130–143.
Laakkonen, M. & Isomäki, H. (2005). On the concept of learnability. In M. Ylä-Kotola, S. Inkinen & H. Isomäki (Eds.) The integrated media machine. Aspects of future interfaces and cross-media culture. Rovaniemi: University of Lapland, 207–232.
Loveless, A., Burton, J. & Turvey, K. (2006). Developing conceptual framework for creativity, ICT and teacher education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1, 3–13.
van Oers, B. & Hännikäinen, M. (2001). Some thoughts about togetherness: an introduction. International Journal of Early Years Education, 9(2), 101–108.
Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: how we use language to think together. London: Routledge.
Postman, N. (1984). The disappearance of childhood. New York: Laurel.
Price, S. & Rogers, Y. (2004). Let’s get physical: the learning benefits of interacting in digitally augmented physical spaces. Computers & Education, 43(1–2), 137–151.
Price, S., Rogers, Y., Scaife, M., Stanton, D. & Neale, H. (2003). Using ‘tangibles’ to promote novel forms of playful learning. Interacting with Computers, 15, 169–185.
Rogers, Y., Scaife, M., Gabrielli, S., Smith, H. & Harris, E. (2002). A conceptual framework for mixed reality environment: designing novel learning activities for young children. Presence, 11(6), 677–686.
Säljö, R. (2001). Oppimiskäytännöt. Sosiokulttuurinen näkökulma. Helsinki: WSOY.
Säljö, R. (2004). Learning and technologies, people and tools in co-ordinated activities. International. Journal of Educational Research, 41, 489–494.
Veen, W. & Vrakking, B. (2006). Homo Zappiens: Growing up in a digital age. London: Network Continuum Education.
Verhaegh, J, Soute, I, Kessels, A. & Markopoulos, P. (2006). On the design of Camelot, an outdoor game for children.
Proceeding of the 2006 conference on Interaction design and children IDC ‘06. ACM Press, 9–16.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
During Let’s Play project (2003–2006) in cooperation with the Smartus team [http://www.smartus.fi]