# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Perceived interplay between flexible learning spaces and teaching, learning and student wellbeing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In recognition of the evolving learning needs of twenty-first century school students, changes to teaching practices and the incorporation of technology are increasingly accompanied by modifications to the built classroom environment. Typically rows of desk and chairs are replaced with a range of furniture that can be configured in various ways to facilitate teaching and learning.

# data[].attributes.body
I think the keynote on inclusion / exclusion and barriers to learning was interesting, if we are thinking of a learning environment in this context - if maximising inclusion and engagement are important to learning. Hargreaves has written a lot about this.

# data[].attributes.body
These are international reports on student health and wellbeing aged 11 13 and 15 that are done across 40-50 countries every 4 years. Data is cross referenced across measures of affluence, and across gender, and contains reporting on school satisfaction, peer influences and family support and its relationship to pupil health and wellbeing. I think it's interesting to compare England vs other countries! The latest data and analysis is here: https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/Life-stages/child-and-adolescent-health/health-behaviour-in-school-aged-children-hbsc/hbsc-2020

# data[].attributes.headline
'The Impact of School Environments' by Steve Higgins, Elaine Hall, Kate Wall, Pam Woolner, Caroline McCaughey, for The Centre for Learning and Teaching

# data[].attributes.subject
'The Impact of School Environments' by Steve Higgins, Elaine Hall, Kate Wall, Pam Woolner, Caroline McCaughey, for The Centre for Learning and Teaching

# data[].attributes.body
I found this really useful, looking at the physical contributing factors to attainment, engagement, affect, attendance and wellbeing.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232607630_The_Impact_of_School_Environments_A_Literature_Review

# data[].attributes.headline
Starting school: young children learning cultures, by Liz Brooker

# data[].attributes.subject
Starting school: young children learning cultures, by Liz Brooker

# data[].attributes.body
This is from 2002 and provides an in-depth comparative study of learning cultures in a primary that serves a deprived area of 'Anglo' and Bangladeshi communities. I've just read Chapter 3 about learning environments and expectations in the home, and it was really thought-provoking about culturally-specific expectations of play vs formal learning (and I guess progressive education), and how this could disadvantage different communities.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Cambridge Primary Review Research Surveys, chapter by Mayall on 'Children's lives outside school and their educational impact'

# data[].attributes.subject
The Cambridge Primary Review Research Surveys, chapter by Mayall on 'Children's lives outside school and their educational impact'

# data[].attributes.body
I was after something else by Mayall but it wasn't available online. This is a summary of research, so has loads of links and a few interesting ideas.

# data[].attributes.body
RTIS Chapter 8 is a good starting point and has a lot of links, not least to some short readings in Pollard Readings for RTIS. chapter 8.

# data[].attributes.body
‘Teaching Children to learn’ by Robert Fisher (1995)
Chapter 10 - Creating a learning environment
Fisher says "what are the characteristics of community which supports success and achievements of individuals within it? One of the characteristics is that of ‘high cohesion’, which is a sense of belonging of shared purpose and support within a group. The strength of a high-cohesion group is that it has a strong identity.”

‘Grouping Students by Ability Regains Favor in Classroom’ by Vivian Yee (2013)
New York Times article.
The article discusses the resurgence of grouping within America as it "become[s] indispensable, helping them cope with widely varying levels of ability and achievement." It also suggests that some studies indicate that grouping reduces self-esteem issues "by ensuring that more advanced students do not make their less advanced peers feel inadequate." It also suggests that "without it, teachers are forced to teach to the middle, leaving out both struggling children and gifted learners. They also say there is a 'peer effect,' in which high-achieving children do better if paired with other high-achieving students." - ultimately it suggests that if you support mobility across the groups and work on the same material but tailor activities and assignments to each group, children of all abilities should succeed, and their self-esteem will not be effected. You need to remove the stigma of the grouping.

‘Some thoughts on teaching a mixed ability class’ by Susan Bremner (2008)
Article in Scottish Languages Review Issue 18
The article suggests that teaching a mixed ability class will work if all pupils are allowed to experience success and to learn as individuals. It suggests that teaching to the 'average' child and as a whole class won't work - you need to give children space to take ownership of their learning and choice over what activities they are interested to work on rather than overly planned lessons.

‘Ability-grouping in Primary Schools: Case Studies and Critical Debates’ by Rachel Marks (2016)
L&T instructed…
Firstly it highlights in order to group by ability the teacher needs to make an assessment of what abilities the children have. It also quotes from Pedley that children from literate homes, with interested and helpful parents, have an enormous advantage over children from culturally poor homes where books are known and conversations either limited or unprintable.

“Later, encountering Jo Boalers work on ability-grouping in secondary mathematics, I was thrown into turmoil as I found myself unable to defend the practices I had engaged in and as a teacher.”

He wrote the book because a French teacher said "you're not good enough, even for the bottom set”.

“Researching this in a primary contact, I was struck by one 8 year old Boy, Zachary telling me he was just not born clever."

He did a study of 3 schools across a year and focused on three children within each mixed-ability class with the focus on maths. It looks at the changes in ability grouping - the butler education act of 1944 established a need for ability-grouping to work towards the 11 plus. It notes there is an apparent resurgence in ability grouping. "Further research shows that children with special educational needs and disabilities long single long-standing illnesses and those perceived by the parents as having behaviour difficulties are overrepresented in bottom sets." Similar to ages being impacted. So this is far from just grouping by current ability.

‘Reassessing 'Ability' Grouping: Improving Practice for Equity and Attainment’ By Becky Francis, Becky Taylor, Antonina (2020)
Chapter 2 - 'Ability grouping' - What is it and why do we do it?’
"Some educational supporters of the claimant grouping reject premises of attainment is fixed or is expressing a student in a potential. Rather, they maintain attainment grouping as a practical response to a pedagogic challenge. It is beneficial to students to learn with others, presently at similar attainment level and such groups are easier for teachers to teach. Let ask all this, the pragmatic argument. And it is possible to subscribe to this without subscribing to notions of ability as inherent, or fixed"

‘Teaching Literacy in Primary Schools Using an Interactive Whole-class Technology: Facilitating Student-to-Student Whole-Class Dialogic Interactions’ by Damian Maher (2012)
Article in Technology, Pedagogy and Education Volume 21, 2012 - Issue 1
This article looks at different dialogic interactions between teachers and students and best practice for whole class activities. It concluded that if the teacher was able to take on the role of facilitator by making suggestions to the students and asking open ended questions as well as changing pedagogical practices to allow students to interact verbally with each other rather than via the teacher as is common in many classrooms, students were able to collaborate and critically explore their ideas in an in-depth way. The students were required to take far more responsibility for the discussions taking place and needed to ensure that they could provide feedback to other students which could then be used to produce the final text.

‘Whole Class Teaching’ by headteacher Irina Tyk (2014)
A paper for the Campaign for Real Education
This says there are three models to teaching - 1) bringing dictatorship into the classroom. “The teacher declaims like a dictator and the pupils write everything down to learn by rote.” 2) Child centred learning – “Children sit in little groups, often with their backs to the teacher, working in groups or in teams. The teacher walks about from table to table, giving advice and making suggestions. In such a setting child sometimes mark each other’s work. It is called peer-marking. The teacher is facilitator. He is no longer a teacher.” 3) The teacher is in the ascendant. “It is a space in which the teacher seeks to engage the minds of every pupil, all of whom face the teacher so that they can see him as an audience watches an actor in the theatre and so that he can watch their faces, ever-ready to respond to the greater or lesser interest of his audience. The teacher is an actor. He speaks and he walks about like an actor. Sometimes he is passionate, sometimes he is humorous and sometimes he is irreverent. Sometimes he speaks the lines of learned men; sometimes he improvises. His pupils are his audience. They watch him and listen to him in rapt attention.”

‘How might teachers enable learner self-confidence?’ by Professor Effie Maclellan (2014)
An educational review study
“Put plainly teachers need, but cannot readily access, conceptual knowledge of what self-confidence is. They further need exemplification of how self-confidence can be promoted. Equipped with these two sets of knowledge, they can then use this knowledge, adaptively, to respond to learners in their care."

"Those whose self-concept is less clear are prone to greater self-handicapping behaviour (Thomas and Gadbois 2007)”

It discusses how one might form a sense of self and what implications this has on self-esteem. "for teachers to support learner perseverance, they need to be substantively persuasive and genuine, rather than being gratuitously complimentary"

"It appears that teachers who actively seek to build on what is already positive in their classrooms (and either abandon or eschew what doesn't promote previously negotiated and agreed goals) (Kelly and Bluestone-Miller 2009) are much better placed to support learners in outlining their own success and progress (Lloyd, Bruce, and Mackintosh 2012) which, in turn, is reported as improving confidence"

"Learners who have contact with their teachers out with formal instruction, feel intellectually and emotionally more confident - with such confidence feeding back into formal instruction"

# data[].attributes.headline
Inequalities in children’s experiences of home learning during the COVID-19 lockdown in England (2020)

# data[].attributes.subject
Inequalities in children’s experiences of home learning during the COVID-19 lockdown in England (2020)

# data[].attributes.body
Andrew, A., Cattan, S., Dias, M. C., Farquharson, C., Kraftman, L., Krutikova, S., ... & Sevilla, A. (2020). Inequalities in children’s experiences of home learning during the COVID-19 lockdown in England. Institute for Fiscal Studies Working Paper.

# data[].attributes.headline
Implications for educational practice of thescience of learning and developmentLinda Darling-Hammond, Lisa Flook, Channa Cook-Harvey, Brigid Barron &David OsherTo cite this article: Linda Darling-Hammond, Lisa Flook, Channa Cook-Harvey, BrigidBarron & David Osher (2020) Implications for educational practice of the scienceof learning and development, Applied Developmental Science, 24:2, 97-140, DOI:10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791

# data[].attributes.subject
Implications for educational practice of thescience of learning and developmentLinda Darling-Hammond, Lisa Flook, Channa Cook-Harvey, Brigid Barron &David OsherTo cite this article: Linda Darling-Hammond, Lisa Flook, Channa Cook-Harvey, BrigidBarron & David Osher (2020) Implications for educational practice of the scienceof learning and development, Applied Developmental Science, 24:2, 97-140, DOI:10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

The present study adopted a quasi-experimental mixed method approach to investigate the influence of an improved school ground on children's academic performance. In total, 123 children from two (intervention and control) primary schools in Bangladesh participated. In the intervention school, a barren school ground was redesigned with several behavior settings (e.g., gardens and amphitheater) for teaching and learning. Treatment group children ( n = 29) received math and science classes outdoors, while a comparison group ( n = 32) received usual indoor classes. A control school with no changes to the outdoor environment was included ( n = 62). The redesigned school ground was associated with higher levels of academic attainment. Furthermore, all intervention schoolchildren perceived more opportunities to explore in the redesigned school ground. Qualitative insights suggest the diverse settings provided more opportunities to explore, experiment, and work collaboratively. These results highlight the potential for school ground design to contribute to improvement of children's academic attainment in developing countries.

Introduction

Outdoor learning is becoming increasingly prevalent in developed countries, as research highlights benefits of learning outdoors on academic attainment, engagement, and behavior (e.g., Lieberman & Hoody, 1998; Lieberman, Hoody, & Lieberman, 2000, 2005). Indeed, definitions of outdoor learning often cite benefits to academic attainment. For example, Palavan, Cicek, and Atabay (2016) state that "outdoor education focuses on experimental, hands-on learning in real-life environments through senses, e.g., through visual, auditory, and tactile means, improving students' learning and retention of knowledge as a result" (p. 1885). In developing countries, poor academic attainment, engagement, and dropout are common; therefore, it seems appropriate to examine whether outdoor learning could be used to promote children's learning in this context. At present, one in five Bangladeshi children who enroll in primary schools do not complete their primary education ( Ministry of Primary and Mass Education, 2016). Poverty, lack of quality education, and the poor physical environment of schools are often cited as causes for this ( Chowdhury, Chowdhury, Hoque, Ahmad, & Sultana, 2009; Zaman, 2014). The present study examined whether and how school ground design and outdoor learning could facilitate and improve children's academic attainment in Bangladesh. While there is a considerable body of research highlighting benefits of outdoor education on learning in developed countries, research in the context of developing countries is scarce, with only one study published to date ( Khan, McGeown, & Islam, 2019). This study therefore makes a considerable contribution to our evolving understanding of whether and how school ground redesign and outdoor education can influence attainment in developing countries.

Outdoor Learning and Academic Attainment

Numerous studies have found a positive impact of outdoor learning on children's academic performance (measured via self-reports or assessments) ( Khan et al., 2019; Lieberman & Hoody, 1998; Lieberman et al., 2000, 2005). For example, in the United States, students attending schools where the surrounding environment was used as a context for teaching (Environment used as an Integrated Context, in short EIC) reported better reading, writing, math, science, and social studies achievement compared with students in more traditional schools ( Lieberman & Hoody, 1998). In later studies using standardized test results, EIC students were found to achieve higher mathematics and science scores than students in traditional classrooms ( Lieberman et al., 2000, 2005). Furthermore, teachers reported reduced discipline and classroom management problems, increased engagement and learning enthusiasm, and greater pride and ownership of accomplishments in the EIC schools compared with the traditional schools ( Lieberman & Hoody, 1998). More recently, in a randomized control trial in the United States, after receiving a gardening intervention (raised beds and lessons in gardens) children from low-income schools showed modest gains in their science knowledge from baseline to follow-up compared with the control group ( Wells et al., 2015). While in a pre-post quasi-experiment in Bangladesh, Khan et al. (2019) found higher science attainment scores and more positive reports of learning engagement when primary school children had been taught science outdoors (in an amphitheater) than indoors in their classroom.

In developing countries, primary school indoor classrooms often feature poor physical environments for learning; for example, poor lighting, seating, and visibility are common ( Khan et al., 2019). These indoor classrooms offer few, if any, opportunities for independent exploration and collaboration as children are typically seated in rows facing a blackboard, with insufficient space for group work or exploration to occur naturally or easily. It is in these contexts that a well-designed outdoor school ground could provide an alternative place for children to learn more effectively, and offer greater opportunities for independent exploration and cooperation ( Khan, 2012; X. Wu, Anderson, Nguyen-Jahiel, & Miller, 2013).

Indeed, the opportunity to explore and investigate the world from outside the classroom is typically inherent within most definitions of outdoor learning. From psychology, theories of constructivism ( Piaget, 1964) and social constructivism ( Vygotsky, Cole, John-Steiner, Scribner, & Souberman, 1978) offer suggestions as to how outdoor education can facilitate learning. Piaget's theory of constructivism proposes that children learn best through independent discovery ( Inhelder & Piaget, 1969)-that by exploring their environment and making their own discoveries, children construct new knowledge ( Wood, 1998). On the contrary, Vygotsky's theory of social constructivism suggests that learning occurs through interpersonal connections in a social environment, where adults and peers support and promote children's learning.

School Ground Design and Academic Attainment

Most research exploring the relationship between school ground design and academic attainment has focused on the impact of "greenness."1 Indeed, several studies in the United States have revealed a positive association between school and neighborhood greenness and children's academic attainment, although previous studies exploring this relationship did not differentiate between different types of greenery (i.e., tree, shrub, and grass; Browning, Kuo, Sachdeva, Lee, & Westphal, 2018). More recent studies by Sivarajah, Smith, and Thomas (2018) and Kuo, Browning, Sachdeva, Lee, and Westphal (2018) positively link school tree cover density with academic achievement. Furthermore, Kweon, Ellis, Lee, and Jacobs (2017) reported a positive association between number of trees and achievement in mathematics and reading standardized tests; landscapes devoid of features (e.g., grass), on the contrary, have been found to have the opposite effect. Interestingly, even classroom window views of trees and shrubs have been found to be correlated with high school students' graduation rates and academic merit awards ( Matsuoka, 2010).

The relationship between school ground design/greening and academic performance is complex, with research often focusing on mediating variables, for example, reduced stress and improved well-being, attention, and cognitive functioning ( Chawla, Keena, Pevec, & Stanley, 2014; Dadvand et al., 2015; Kelz, Evans, & Roderer, 2013; Li & Sullivan, 2016). However, an alternative approach is to examine academic attainment by the affordances that school ground design offers. Gibson's (1979) theory of affordances refers to those properties of an environment that support and complement people's development. The opportunities for learning offered by different physical features of the school ground have been termed "cognitive affordances" by Khan, Bell, McGeown, and Silveirinha de Oliveira (2019). Indeed, rich and diverse outdoor environments provide more affordances for play and learning ( Cosco, 2006; Moore & Wong, 1997), whereas barren school grounds can discourage children from diverse play, social interaction, ecological experience, and learning ( Samborski, 2010).

In summary, these research studies highlight possible benefits of a carefully designed school ground on children's learning and attainment. However, despite a growing body of knowledge on this topic, significant research gaps remain. For example, most experimental research studies have investigated the influence of school ground redesign on physical activity, cognitive functioning, or stress reduction, but rarely have studies focused on pedagogy and attainment; also, there is an absence of mixed methods research studies that also take into account children's views. Furthermore, a significant gap exists in our knowledge of school ground design and its relationship with academic attainment in developing countries. To our knowledge, Khan et al. (2019) was the first to report a quasi-experimental study investigating the impact of learning in an outdoor classroom in the context of a developing country.

The Present Study

In the present study, an intervention was carried out in a primary school in Bangladesh, where the school ground was designed and developed as a place for teaching and learning. Using a pre-post design, the present study evaluated the impact of learning in a renovated schoolground on children's academic attainment. Using questionnaires and focus-group discussions, the study further explored how the school ground may have supported children's learning. It is a study of children's behavior from an environmental designer's perspective, the aim of which is to investigate whether the use of the outdoors as a learning environment can help with issues particularly pronounced in developing countries like Bangladesh, that is, low academic attainment.

An intervention school (IS) and a control school (CS) were selected in Bangladesh; the former received changes to the school ground and outdoor education was introduced to a randomly selected group of students at this school (TIS), while a second group at this school did not receive outdoor education (CIS). The following hypotheses were examined quantitatively:

Hypothesis 1: The treatment group (TIS) would have significantly better academic attainment in subjects taught outdoors (i.e., math and science), compared with the comparison group from the same school (CIS) and CS children.

Hypothesis 2: The TIS group would report significantly more positive reports of opportunities for exploration outdoors compared with the CS group. No differences were predicted between TIS and CIS groups.

Hypothesis 3: The TIS group would report significantly more positive reports of opportunities for collaboration outdoors compared with the CS group. No differences were predicted between the TIS and CIS groups.

Qualitative methods were also used to understand TIS children's perceptions of how the school ground design and outdoor teaching supported, or hindered, their learning.

Method

Study Design

This mixed methods intervention study included pre- and post-test measures. The independent variable was school ground (redesigned in intervention, no changes in control), and the dependent variables were academic attainment and children's perceptions of opportunities for exploration and collaboration. Qualitative insights were also sought using focus groups.

Selection of Study Settings

Two public primary schools: an IS and a CS in the subdistrict of Raipura, about 180 kilometers from Dhaka, the capital city of Bangladesh, were selected (see Figure 1). The majority of children in Bangladesh attend public schools for primary education and these schools share a standard design, which is prototyped across the country following some site adjustments (e.g., orientation of the building and number of classrooms depending on the length and width of the site). Over 60,000 public primary schools meet these criteria. Among the 213 public primary schools in the subdistrict of Raipura, 10 schools were shortlisted based on several criteria:

1. Whether the schools comply with the physical environment requirement (0.33 acres of mandatory land area)

2. Demographics of the school and children (i.e., average school size, n = 300-400 students)

3. No development or pilot project taking place on site

4. Interest and availability from the school for intervention and field research

Following a rigorous analysis of schools in Raipura based on these criteria, the IS was selected. Using the IS's exam scores, child demographics (e.g., gender), school size, and quality of the physical environment, a CS was selected (see Table 1). For ease of data collection and to ensure comparability in curriculum and assessment, the search for a CS was restricted to the same township; this also ensured children were of similar socioeconomic backgrounds.

Profiles of Intervention and Control School.

Participants

In total, 123 children (aged 8-11) participated in the study (61 from IS and 62 from CS). Within the IS, there were two predefined "sections,"2 Section B comprised the treatment group (TIS; n = 29) and Section A comprised the comparison group (CIS; n = 32). There were no baseline differences in test performance between the sections, and both sections received the same number of daily classes, with specific curriculum content (e.g., science, mathematics) taught by the same teacher in both sections.

Children aged 8 to 11 years (Grade 4) were selected as it is possible to obtain reliable measures of their academic performance as they participate in mathematics and science exams, whereas younger students do not. In addition, the dropout rate for primary children is highest at this Grade ( Bangladesh Bureau of Educational Information and Statistics, 2014); therefore, evaluating interventions to encourage greater engagement and retention among this age group is crucial.

Measures

Academic attainment: Math and science

Public primary schools in Bangladesh administer three exams taken at 4-month intervals in April, August, and December. Children's attainment scores were collected in December 2014 and May 2015 as pre (T1) and post (T2) results from both the intervention and control school. Only mathematics and science exam scores were used as only these subjects were taught outdoors. The exams taken by students in the intervention and control school were the same, and clear marking criteria were given; therefore, scoring was objective.

Perceived exploration and collaboration

A self-report questionnaire was designed (following Artino, La Rochelle, Dezee, & Gehlbach, 2014 survey scale design process) to gain insight into children's perceived opportunities for exploration and collaboration outdoors. Following a literature review and early input from children and teachers ( n = 7), questionnaire items were developed originally in English. Following pilot testing (five children, two teachers) in Scotland, minor language modifications were made before the questionnaire was translated double-blind following the recommendations by Griffee (2001). Expert validation was conducted by an expert in child development in Bangladesh. Further pilot testing (six children, six teachers) in Bangladesh resulted in one further modification. All children completed the questionnaires at T1 (November 2014) and T2 (May 2015).

The questionnaire examined perceived opportunities for exploration (using four items focusing on independent exploration, exploration, playfulness, and discovery, T1 α = .40, T2 α = .68) and collaboration (using four items focusing on support, cooperation, sharing of ideas, and group work, T1 α = .42, T2 α = .62) outdoors. Cronbach's alpha values were higher at T2. Factor analyses (principal component analysis with Varimax [orthogonal] rotation) using T2 data indicated that the four exploration items were distinct from the four collaboration items, see Table 2. Furthermore, to assess the scales' test-retest reliability, T1 and T2 data were used from the CS and were r = .582, p < .05 and r = .470, p = .05 for exploration and collaboration respectively. Children responded using a 4-point scale, ranging from "never true" to "always true." Please see the supplemental appendix for questionnaire items and response scale. At both times, the questionnaire was completed in the children's indoor classrooms. Children were given instructions on how to complete the questionnaire, including practice questions. The researcher ensured all children completing the questionnaire understood the questions asked.

Factor Loadings for Questionnaire Items.

Children's qualitative insights

Qualitative insights were gained via six focus groups (4-6 children in each) at T2. Only all TIS children (13 boys and 15 girls) participated in the focus groups. The researcher created small groups and a friendly environment to encourage full participation from all children ( Krueger & Casey, 2009). The focus group discussions were semistructured, each lasting approximately 30 min. Discussions focused on how the school ground supported or deterred learning in science and math, children's views about learning other subjects outdoors, and the potential influence of the school ground on teachers' quality of teaching. The conversations were recorded and translated into English during transcription.

Procedure

Pre-intervention data collection (T1, November 2014) was held prior to school ground construction (November 2014-January 2015). TIS children were then taught mathematics and science outdoors from January 2015 to May 2015, with post-intervention data collected in May 2015 (T2).

Design and development of the school ground

The school ground was designed as a combination of seven behavior settings: a natural learning area, a water learning area, an area with loose materials, an amphitheater, a play area, gardens, and huts (see Figures 2 and 3). All settings were designed around an open yard, and a pathway was formed using a series of stepping stones, providing access to all settings. Some parts of the school were painted bright colors, and the children painted a mural on the boundary wall. As part of the natural learning area and gardens, new plants were planted, which resulted in 27 types of vegetation in the school ground after redesign compared with only two types before intervention. A detailed description of the design and development of the school ground is published elsewhere ( Khan et al., 2019). After the school ground was ready for use, the use of the school ground for teaching of the curricula (science and math) was limited to only the TIS group (see Figure 4); however, the school ground was used for play and other informal learning activities by all the children in the school.

Intervention details

In both the IS (treatment and comparison group) and CS, children received 40 min of mathematics and 40 min of science teaching daily (children attend school 6 days a week in Bangladesh). The time allocated to mathematics and science teaching was not changed from the ordinary provision in either school. In addition, children in the treatment group did not receive any supplemental teaching-their standard curriculum was always taught outdoors instead of indoors (with some exceptions due to weather). In the IS, the same teacher taught math to the treatment group outdoors and comparison group indoors. Similarly, the same teacher taught science to the treatment group outdoors and comparison group indoors; therefore "teacher" remained constant across both conditions. The teachers were given no guidance as to how to teach math and science outdoors and were encouraged to develop their own pedagogy to teach the same curriculum as was taught indoors. This curriculum was the same as that in the CS. For the comparison group in the IS, students sitting beside windows could view the redesigned school ground from their classes, but through small windows which are characteristic of the building's design.

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval for the project was granted by the University of Edinburgh, and permission was also obtained from the school headmaster and the parents to record, photograph, and videotape the children during the research process (i.e., renovations to the school ground, focus-group discussions). In addition, verbal assent from the children themselves was gained prior to the study and prior to each focus group discussion.

Data Analysis

Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of normality generated a significant result in most of the variables, which suggests the violation of normality. However, this was conservative for many of the cases ( Hopkins & Weeks, 1990; Pallant, 2013). As an alternative approach, the skewness and kurtosis data were examined to identify whether the data fell into the acceptable range of normality ( George & Mallery, 2013; Lewis-Beck, Bryman, & Liao, 2003), which they did. Therefore, parametric tests (one-way analysis of covariance [ANCOVA]) were selected to compare the groups; however, a nonparametric alternative for analysis of variance (ANOVA; Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA) was also conducted.

The influence of the outdoor environment on exam scores was measured by comparing the groups (a) TIS and CS and (b) TIS and CIS at T2, using a one-way ANCOVA, which accounted for T1 scores. The influence of outdoors on perceived exploration and collaboration was also analyzed following the same procedure. The data generated from the focus groups were analyzed using thematic analysis to capture the complexity of meanings from the children's responses ( Guest, MacQueen, & Namey, 2012). The data were analyzed combining the matrix and template process within thematic analysis outlined by King, Horrocks, and Brooks (2010). From this, several themes emerged: children's activities, place preferences, and learning math and learning science in the school ground. These themes were used to form the headings of the preliminary matrix structure; each question under a general theme formed a subtheme (e.g., opportunities for exploration and opportunities for collaboration under learning science and math in the school ground), which formed a subheading in the matrix structure. Focus group extracts/quotations were then assessed and organized under the headings of that matrix structure. A template was developed based on the themes from the matrix; the themes and subthemes in the matrix and template were not rigid, and subthemes or overarching themes were redefined throughout the analysis process, allowing new themes to emerge, for example, physical comfort. The analysis was an iterative process that required going back and forth between the template and matrix.

Results

Pre-Test Scores

At T1, there were no significant differences in math or science scores between TIS and CS or TIS and CIS ( p > .05). Similarly, there were no statistically significant differences found for perceived exploration and collaboration between the groups ( p > .05). Therefore, the T1 measures indicate the comparability of the groups and schools in terms of their academic attainment and perceptions of opportunities for exploration and collaboration outdoors.

Academic Attainment

In a one-way ANCOVA (covarying for T1) to explore differences between the groups after 4 months of teaching and learning in the outdoor environment (T2), there was a significant difference in math attainment between the groups: F(2, 99) = 8.53, p < .001, = .15 (see Figure 5 and Table 3). After correcting the significance level for multiple comparisons (Bonferroni), TIS scores were significantly higher than CIS and CS scores ( p < .0125). There was no significant difference between CIS and CS. With regard to science, there was a significant difference between the groups: F(2, 99) = 7.00, p < .001, = .13. After controlling for multiple comparisons (Bonferroni), TIS scores were significantly higher than CIS and CS scores ( p < .0125). There was no significant difference between CIS and CS. These results support the hypothesis that learning in a redesigned school ground can improve children's academic attainment.

Mean Scores and Standard Deviations in Academic Attainment, Perceived Exploration, and Collaboration.

Opportunities for Exploration

In a one-way ANCOVA (covarying for T1) to explore differences between the groups in perceived opportunities to explore outdoors, after only TIS students had received 4 months of outdoor teaching and learning (T2), there was a significant difference between the groups: F(2, 70) = 20.76, p < .001, = .38 (see Figure 6). After controlling for multiple comparisons (Bonferroni), TIS scores were significantly higher than CS scores ( p < .0125), but not CIS scores. CIS scores were also significantly higher than CS scores ( p < .0125). This suggests that the children in the IS perceived greater opportunities for exploration, regardless of whether they were engaged in formal learning in this context.

Opportunities for Collaboration

In a one-way ANCOVA (covarying for T1) to explore differences between the groups in perceived opportunities for collaboration outdoors, after only TIS students had received 4 months of outdoor teaching and learning (T2), there was no significant difference: F(2, 70) = 1.35, p > .0125 after controlling for multiple comparisons (Bonferroni; see Figure 7).

Children's Qualitative Insights

Following T2 data collection, but prior to data analysis, focus groups were conducted to gain insight into children's perceptions of how the school ground design supported or discouraged their learning. The findings are discussed around the two main themes of exploration and collaboration, but a further important theme emerged-physical comfort.

Opportunities for exploration

Opportunities for exploration were perceived to be very limited inside the classroom, and children felt the school ground offered far more opportunities to explore. Indeed, the opportunity to explore and experiment was one of the main features discussed with regard to learning science and mathematics outdoors: "In science class we can experiment with what happens to a plant with or without water in gardens, and learn about the importance of water" (Girl 1). The children explained how they used different settings for that purpose: "We made the water habitat in the tubs, we put fish there . . ." (Boy 2). The natural and manufactured materials in the loose materials area offered children the affordance for constructing activities: "Madam lets us play and build different things" (Boy 1); "we build houses in the open yard fetching materials from the area with loose materials" (Girl 6).

Many children also said that the teacher could explain their science and mathematics curriculum much more clearly, using the different settings in the renovated schoolground, which better supported their understanding and was more likely to lead to sustained knowledge: "Madam explains showing trees . . . she explains interdependence of plants and animals . . . I can understand easily" (Boy 5). "We can understand better when the teacher uses different elements. Even if we forget, we can remember when we look outside at these settings" (Girl 3). The teacher used different loose materials to teach the children different concepts and theories related to science and mathematics: "Madam uses seeds to teach us counting, division, subtraction . . ." (Boy 3). The teacher also tried using seeds inside the classroom, but: "We can't see in the classroom standing if madam works with seeds . . . but in the amphitheater we can all see and understand . . ." (Girl 4).

Opportunities for collaboration

One important aspect repeatedly mentioned by children was the opportunity to work in groups in the outdoor environment; children had far greater opportunities to do this than in the classroom environment. "Madam tells us to work in groups, we work in groups in the huts . . . we work wherever we like . . ." (Girl 3). According to most of the children, working in groups in different settings during the outdoor classes helped them understand easily; the children explained how they used different settings for group work: "We work in groups in the huts, playhouse and the amphitheater, we count the bamboo pieces in mathematics class." (Boy 3); "One of us tells and another one writes . . ." (Girl 1). Working in groups keeps children engaged in their tasks, the children also said that they cooperated with each other and helped their friends: "We sometimes poke each other in the classroom, but in the outdoor class we work together . . ." (Boy 5).

Physical comfort

The children enjoyed their outdoor classes as they felt more physically comfortable there. The poor physical environment of the classrooms most likely explains this. In Public Primary Schools in Bangladesh, the classrooms are generally dark and there are no fans in most of them, which makes children uncomfortable on hot summer days: "There is light and air outside . . . shade . . ." (Boy 6); "It feels hot in the classroom . . ." (Girl 8).

Discussion

The present study examined both the outcome (educational attainment) and the process (opportunities for exploration and collaboration) of learning in an outdoor environment compared to an indoor classroom. With regard to educational attainment, children taught outdoors (TIS) had significantly higher exam scores (science and math) than children taught indoors (CIS and CS). This was an exciting finding and demonstrates the potential for outdoor teaching to have a significant positive impact on children's learning in developing countries. Indeed, these findings echo those of past researchers in developed countries ( Lieberman & Hoody, 1998; Lieberman et al., 2000, 2005) and align with a smaller scale project conducted in a developing country ( Khan et al., 2019). Focus group discussions provided some insight into why these differences may have occurred. For example, TIS children reported that they could understand the concepts of math and science better when taught outside. Indeed, they had much less to say about learning in the classroom, whereas learning in the outdoor environment was perceived as more "active, collaborative and challenging" ( Singal & Swann, 2011, p. 469). Our results demonstrate that an outdoor space designed with purpose and bearing educational opportunities can enhance the academic achievement in developing countries. Interestingly, however, the findings are inconsistent with the general perception of open space researchers, who propose that even playing in a renovated school ground can have an impact on children's academic performance ( Lopez, Campbell, & Jennings, 2008).

With regard to exploration, children enrolled in the IS (TIS and CIS) reported significantly higher levels of perceived outdoor exploration opportunities, compared to children in the CS. Therefore, children in the IS, regardless of whether or not they received outdoor teaching, experienced a greater awareness of the potential for the outdoors to be a site to learn independently; indeed, barren school grounds provide few affordances for exploration ( Samborski, 2010). These increased opportunities for exploration were also shared during the focus groups with TIS children, as they spoke of how the different elements in the various settings of the school ground could be used to experiment and investigate (e.g., gardens, water habitat, and loose materials). These findings echo Moore and Wong's (1997) work on school ground redesign in the United States and Singal and Swann's (2011) work on outdoor learning.

Regarding perceived opportunities for collaboration, there was no statistically significant difference between the IS and CS groups. This is, to some extent, inconsistent with the focus group findings, where children from the TIS spoke enthusiastically about opportunities for collaboration outdoors based on physical features of the outdoor environment (e.g., huts). Indeed, it would be expected that children in the IS would have a greater awareness of the opportunities to collaborate outdoors. There are a number of possible explanations for these findings. First, definitions of outdoor learning typically stress increased opportunities to explore and investigate, not collaborate; it may be that outdoor learning only benefits the former, not the latter. However, the absence of a difference could also be explained by the way in which teachers encouraged children to use the new outdoor environment; teachers perhaps focused more predominantly on the opportunities for active and independent exploration, rather than increased opportunities for collaboration. Therefore, it is not only changes to a school ground that are important, but also sufficient training with teachers to ensure the newly developed outdoor environment is used optimally to promote learning, engagement, and retention. As noted earlier, indoor classroom size and layout in developing countries do not easily invite opportunities for collaboration ( Khan et al., 2019); therefore, there is arguably unexploited potential to develop this outdoors.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

First, it is not possible to disentangle the influence of being outdoors with instructional approach, as TIS students received a change in both. Indeed, the assessment of factors affecting internal validity is incomplete; therefore, it is not possible to conclude which factors led to the increases in attainment found in the TIS group. While this study focused on the pedagogical possibilities inherent within the school ground design (i.e., exploration and collaboration), it is very possible that other mechanisms associated with being outdoors and exposed to increased "greenness" (e.g., attention restoration, increased well-being) can explain, in part, the findings. An additional CS, where children received outdoor education in the absence of a renovated school ground, is necessary to understand the influence of the design. To conclude, it is unclear which of the multiple changes (e.g., pedagogical approach, outdoor environment, novelty of the new setting) can explain the findings. Future research on a larger scale is necessary to understand this.

Furthermore, the approaches used to teach mathematics and science outdoors were not prescribed by the research team. This was an intentional decision as the teachers had autonomy over their pedagogical approaches indoors. However, teachers will vary in the approaches they use to teach these subjects (both indoors and outdoors), and this will influence students' outcomes. The seven outdoor behavior settings (e.g., natural learning area, huts) offered considerable flexibility for use, and therefore students' attainment and activities (exploration and collaboration) will be a reflection of how the teacher guided learning in these settings. Further research is necessary to understand how different behavior settings can be used most effectively to optimize students' learning. Despite this, a strength of this study is that the same teachers taught the different groups either indoors or outdoors and students' interest and attainment were a priority for teachers regardless of the setting where they taught (i.e., teachers had no desire to improve one of their groups' performance over the other).

In addition, the posttest was conducted after only 4 months of outdoor teaching; therefore, it was not possible to understand the longer term implications of the outdoor design on the variables of interest. While posttests after 3 months are found in landscape architecture research ( Silveirinha de Oliveira et al., 2013), longer term follow-ups are necessary to explore sustained impact. In addition, as this was a new design, it is unclear what impact this had on the findings. For example, the novel experience of teaching and learning outdoors may have created a shared enthusiasm among the teachers and children, which could explain the increased academic achievement among the TIS group. Alternatively, and equally possible, however, is that the novel experience of teaching and learning outdoors was a new and uncertain approach for teachers and students; teachers had no opportunity to use tried and tested approaches to support children's learning. Therefore, it is possible that gains in academic attainment could be even greater when teachers have more experience and training in outdoor education. Further research is necessary to look at the impact of this project as teaching and learning outdoors becomes more routine and teachers gather greater experience and confidence in teaching outdoors.

Among the limitations of this study are weaknesses in the reliability of the measures. Both the four-item measure of exploration and the four-item measure of collaboration had relatively low internal consistency, as indicated by Cronbach alpha (ranging from .40 to .68). It is unclear why Cronbach alpha values for exploration and for collaboration were higher at T2 than at T1; we speculate that use of the outdoor environment may have led the students to consolidate their perceptions of opportunities for exploration and collaboration. Furthermore, factor analysis revealed that the items were loaded onto the constructs they were intended for. To measure the stability of the instrument, test-retest reliability was calculated; T1 scores correlated significantly with T2 scores, although only a moderate relationship was found. This perhaps reflects the length of time between T1 and T2 (6 months); test-retest reliability is typically calculated over shorter periods of time. In future research, the development of a longer instrument (i.e., more than four items to measure each construct), greater input from the population under study, and more extensive piloting (including assessing test-retest reliability over a shorter period) would improve construct validity. In addition, research cites numerous benefits of outdoor learning (e.g., improved behavior and attention, increased interest, enjoyment, etc.). A questionnaire and focus groups designed to measure a wider range of constructs from the research literature would be useful.

Due to funding restrictions, the intervention was conducted in a single school with a relatively small sample size, posing threats to external and statistical validity. However, the school is representative of more than 60,000 public primary schools in Bangladesh. The standard design of primary schools is followed in many developing countries in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, which arguably means the study has some generalizability to not only primary schools in Bangladesh but also to other developing and less developed countries. Nevertheless, it cannot be assumed that an approach successful in one setting will be successful in another; as with all education-based interventions, it requires considerable interest and commitment from schools and teachers to be successful.

Implications

The present study has considerable implications for Governments and donors when they are prompted to consider policies regarding children's learning and academic attainment. Building more classrooms is the dominant approach for infrastructure development in the primary education sector of Bangladesh; however, these classrooms often do not function properly and need technical adjustments ( Kalra, Khan, & Rehman, 2014). In a previous mixed methods study by Khan et al. (2019), children reported that outdoor school ground redesign significantly improved their physical learning environment, with significantly better lighting, acoustics, and seating. Furthermore, qualitative insights revealed that aspects of the indoor classroom led to poor learning opportunities (i.e., an inability to view the blackboard in crowded classrooms, noise from neighboring classrooms, poor lighting, and airflow). The cost to build one classroom for 50 children is approximately £27,000,3 whereas a school ground can be developed at a cost of approximately £10,0004 and can be used by children throughout the whole school for both pedagogy and play. Providing children with more diverse spaces to learn and play and providing teachers with the insights necessary to maximize the use of these spaces should be on the agenda of policy makers in developing countries, where poor attainment and retention are key issues. Furthermore, though not a focus of the present study, health and well-being are also key concerns in developing countries, and there is a rich research literature demonstrating the positive influence of being outdoors on both health and well-being outcomes. This study demonstrates that developing an outdoor learning environment adjacent to a school offers an innovative yet cost effective approach to enhance learning.

In terms of guiding further school ground renovation in developing countries, Khan and colleagues (in preparation) are currently creating a blueprint based on this study, with details of the different behavior settings and the affordances they offer. While not proposing a prescriptive approach to the development of school grounds, this blueprint will provide extensive details of the design of this school ground that can be used as an example for other schools in developing countries interested in introducing outdoor learning.

Conclusion

This mixed methods research study provides some of the first evidence to demonstrate the benefits of designing and developing an outdoor learning environment to support children's attainment in developing countries. To ensure teaching and learning is optimal, guidance regarding the potential uses of the outdoor settings is important. Such insights are likely to come from future engagement with the research users (i.e., teachers and children) and through larger scale mixed methods studies.

Acknowledgements

We thank the children, teachers, and parents of the schools; the members of the school managing committee; Ar Fuad Abdul Quaium, Ar Kashfia Alam Khan, Mr Abdullah Al Shafi Khan and the community of the intervention school for their participation and support. We also thank the Charles Wallace Bangladesh Trust for support with the continuation of analysis and write-up of the study.

Authors' Note
Matluba Khan is also affiliated to University College London, UK and Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Bangladesh.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research was supported by Principal Career Development Scholarship and Global Research Scholarship from the University of Edinburgh.

Notes

1.
Exposure to trees and vegetation.

2.
In this school, there were two "sections" (i.e., classes) in Grade 4; students are split to ensure the sections are matched on average academic attainment. That is, students' academic performance in the final exam of their previous school year is used to create these sections (i.e., student with the highest mark is assigned to Section A, second highest mark to Section B, etc.).

3.
The cost for building one classroom was calculated based on the study by Kalra, Khan, and Rehman (2014).

4.
The cost for developing a school ground was calculated based on the development work in the intervention school, which excludes the fees for a landscape architect.

References

Artino, A. R., La Rochelle, J. S., Dezee, K. J., Gehlbach, H. (2014). Developing questionnaires for educational research. Medical Teacher, 36, 463-474. doi: |
Google Scholar Crossref | Medline | ISI

Chawla, L., Keena, K., Pevec, I., Stanley, E. (2014). Green schoolyards as havens from stress and resources for resilience in childhood and adolescence. Health & Place, 28, 1-13. doi: |
Google Scholar Crossref | Medline | ISI

Dadvand, P., Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., Esnaola, M., Forns, J., Basagaña, X., Alvarez-Pedrerol, M., ... Sunyer, J. (2015). Green spaces and cognitive development in primary schoolchildren. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 201503402. doi:10.1073/pnas.1503402112 |
Google Scholar Crossref

Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., Namey, E. E. (2012). Introduction to applied thematic analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. |
Google Scholar Crossref

Hopkins, K. D., Weeks, D. L. (1990). Tests for normality and measures of skewness and kurtosis: Their place in research reporting. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50, 717-729. doi: |
Google Scholar SAGE Journals | ISI

Kalra, R., Khan, I., Rehman, O. (2014). Final report: Efficiency analysis of classroom infrastructure for primary education in Bangladesh. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a089afed915d622c000355/PEDP_Final_Report_V13May2014.pdf
Google Scholar

Khan, M. (2012). Outdoor as learning environment for children at a government primary school in Bangladesh (Master's thesis). Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology.
Google Scholar

Khan, M., Bell, S., McGeown, S., Silveirinha de Oliveira, E. (2019). Designing an outdoor learning environment for and with a primary school community: A case study in Bangladesh. Landscape Research, 1-16. doi: 10.1080/01426397.2019.1569217 |
Google Scholar Crossref

Khan, M., Bell, S., McGeown, S., Silveirinha de Oliveira, E. (in preparation). Designing school grounds as a place for pedagogy and play.
Google Scholar

Kuo, M., Browning, M. H. E. M., Sachdeva, S., Lee, K., Westphal, L. (2018). Might school performance grow on trees? Examining the link between "greenness" and academic achievement in urban, high-poverty schools. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1669. doi: |
Google Scholar Crossref

Matsuoka, R. H. (2010). Student performance and high school landscapes: Examining the links. Landscape and Urban Planning, 97, 273-282. doi: |
Google Scholar Crossref | ISI

Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. In Ripple, R. E., Rockcastle, V. N. (Eds.), Piaget rediscovered (pp. 7-20). New York, NY: Cornell University.
Google Scholar

Silveirinha, de, Oliveira, E., Aspinall, P., Briggs, A., Cummins, S., Leyland, A. H., Mitchell, R., . . . Thompson, C. (2013). How effective is the Forestry Commission Scotland's woodland improvement programme-"Woods In and Around Towns" (WIAT)-at improving psychological well-being in deprived urban communities? A quasi-experimental study. BMJ Open, 3(8), e003648. doi: |
Google Scholar Crossref | Medline

Zaman, M. M. (2014). Dropout at primary and secondary level: A challenge to ensure rights to education for the government of Bangladesh. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Brac University.
Google Scholar

Author Biographies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Can an Outdoor Learning Environment Improve Children's Academic Attainment? A Quasi-Experimental Mixed Methods Study in Bangladesh - Matluba Khan, Sarah McGeown, Simon Bell, 2020

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Abstract The present study adopted a quasi-experimental mixed method approach to investigate the influence of an improved school ground on children's academic performance. In total, 123 children from two (intervention and control) primary schools in Bangladesh participated. In the intervention school, a barren school ground was redesigned with several behavior settings (e.g., gardens and amphitheater) for teaching and learning.

# data[].attributes.headline
Can an Outdoor Learning Environment Improve Children’s Academic Attainment? A Quasi-Experimental Mixed Methods Study in Bangladesh

# data[].attributes.subject
Can an Outdoor Learning Environment Improve Children’s Academic Attainment? A Quasi-Experimental Mixed Methods Study in Bangladesh

# data[].attributes.body
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013916519860868

# data[].attributes.headline
Boaler - Creating mathematical futures through an equitable teaching approach: The case of Railside School. (and Boaler generally)

# data[].attributes.subject
Boaler - Creating mathematical futures through an equitable teaching approach: The case of Railside School. (and Boaler generally)

# data[].attributes.body
This is about mixed-ability grouping but very much about the classroom environment, both physical, social and task-based.

# data[].attributes.headline
Perceived class climate and school-aged children's life satisfaction: The role of the learning environment in classrooms

# data[].attributes.subject
Perceived class climate and school-aged children's life satisfaction: The role of the learning environment in classrooms

# data[].attributes.body
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189335

# data[].attributes.headline
The Physical Environment of the School: A Review of the Research Carol S. Weinstein Rutgers—The State University of New Jersey

# data[].attributes.subject
The Physical Environment of the School: A Review of the Research Carol S. Weinstein Rutgers—The State University of New Jersey

# data[].attributes.body
This paper reviews research on the impact of classroom environments on student behavior, attitudes, and achievement.

# data[].attributes.headline
Diane Reay (2012) What would a socially just education system looklike?: saving the minnows from the pike, Journal of Education Policy

# data[].attributes.subject
Diane Reay (2012) What would a socially just education system looklike?: saving the minnows from the pike, Journal of Education Policy

# data[].attributes.body
Focusing largely on how economic inequality affects education outcomes, and how socio-economic inequality is one of the less acknowledged barriers to success that learners face

# data[].attributes.headline
Thinking about home learning - covid times!

# data[].attributes.subject
Thinking about home learning - covid times!

# data[].attributes.body
The profound shift of digital literacies - Gunther Kress. Readings for reflective teachers, Andrew Pollard, 2nd edition,

# data[].attributes.body
Different children’s perspectives on their learning environment

# data[].attributes.body
McGillicuddy, D., & Devine, D. (2020). ‘You feel ashamed that you are not in the higher group’—Children’s psychosocial response to ability grouping in primary school. British Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 553-573.

# data[].attributes.body
(Grouping)

# data[].attributes.headline
Best evidence on supporting students to learn remotely

# data[].attributes.subject
Best evidence on supporting students to learn remotely

# data[].attributes.body
https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/covid-19-resources/best-evidence-on-supporting-students-to-learn-remotely/

Teaching quality is more important than how lessons are delivered

Access to technology is key- esp for disadvantaged pupils

Peer interactions can provide motivation and improve learning outcomes

i.e feedback, collaboration

Supporting pupils on Working independently can improve learning outcomes

i.e. reflection,

Disadvantaged pupils benefit from a daily plan- more explicit support

Varied approach for different contexts

i.e. games for foreign language

# data[].attributes.headline
Some really good figures about the pandemic and education

# data[].attributes.subject
Some really good figures about the pandemic and education

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/3-ways-coronavirus-is-reshaping-education-and-what-changes-might-be-here-to-stay/

# data[].attributes.headline
Hattie, John, and Gregory C. R. Yates. Visible Learning and the Science of How We Learn, Taylor & Francis Group, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucl/detail.action?docID=1458571

# data[].attributes.subject
Hattie, John, and Gregory C. R. Yates. Visible Learning and the Science of How We Learn, Taylor & Francis Group, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ucl/detail.action?docID=1458571

# data[].attributes.body
'Short, great accomplishment does not just happen as a product of a child’s innate talent. It appears linked with years of development and steady preparation, often around two decades, and which takes place in a highly supportive context. Motivation and drive emerge as background factors linked into family goals, aspirations, and life attitudes.'

# data[].attributes.headline
Re-examining the Verbal Environments of Children From Different Socioeconomic Backgrounds - Sperry - 2019 - Child Development - Wiley Online Library (ucl.ac.uk)

# data[].attributes.subject
Re-examining the Verbal Environments of Children From Different Socioeconomic Backgrounds - Sperry - 2019 - Child Development - Wiley Online Library (ucl.ac.uk)

# data[].attributes.body
This study counteracted Hart and Risley’s (1995) claim that poor children hear 30 million fewer words than their middle-class counterparts during the early years of life.

Sperry’s study included conversation in which child wasn’t active but was overhearing. Included more lower income families in which there are often bystanders, dialect and other community members involved and multiple caregivers- they did not exclude these interactions like Hart and Risely.