VThe Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) andNational Quality Standards (NOS) emphasise theimportance of the physical environment as both a

NQSSP© key practice and now a Quality Area to be assessed inservices. And yet what does a high quality physical environment look like?Luke Touhill looks at spaces that support children's learning.

he physical environment is a central componentof the programs that we offer children. It is notnecessarily the most important element in creat-ing a high quality service—ultimately it will be thequality of the relationships and interactions within

a centre which determines the quality of care. However theenvironment plays a major role in either supporting or hinder-ing the development of such relationships.

A rich and inviting environment provides opportunities forchildren to explore and investigate their world at their own pace,:o develop an interest in learning and to share that with oth-ers. Importantly it also provides a reflection of our views aboutchildren and families—it is a concrete measure of our beliefs andone that on first impressions can create either a sense of wel-come or a sense of unease.

In the last 15 years there has been a renewed interest in therole the physical environment can piay in supporting children'slearning. Much of this interest has been sparked by ideas fromReggio Emilia.To the educators of Reggio a carefully plannedenvironment is the equivalent of an extra teacher and thisidea— of the environment as a "third teacher"—has quicklybecome a key element in discussions about the design of chil-dren's services.The striking differences between the preschoolsof Reggio and those of Australia (or, for that matter, the UnitedStates, Canada or the United Kingdom) has prompted consider-able debate about the adequacy of existing approaches to serv-ice design and organisation, the result of which has been a majorreappraisal within the early childhood field of how environmentsfor children should look.

The significance of this debate, and of the influence of ReggioEmilia, can be gauged from the fact that it is difficult now toimagine any serious discussion of physical environments with-out some reference to Reggio. And yet there is also a downside tothis interest in Reggio. For some, the sheer beauty and eleganceof the Reggio preschools has overshadowed the more importantlessons as to how an environment can be designed and organ-ised to promote children's learning. We have therefore seen amovement to more careful presentation of play materials andgreater consideration of the "aesthetics" of children's environ-ment. Welcome as this is, on its own it does relatively little tochange children's experience of early childhood settings andsupport their learning. Beautifying a dysfunctional environmentwill do little to address underlying issues caused by lack of spaceor poor organisation. Wicker baskets may be a step up from icecream containers and shoe boxes but without deeper thinking asto how the environment as a whole can support or hinder chil-dren's learning they remain window dressing.Deeper thinking requiredIn this article I would like to explore how we can move our think-ing about the physical environment beyond just aesthetics toalso include ideas about how we organise space and how ourspaces help to structure children's play and learning.

One of the first things to understand about our environmentsis that they affect our behaviour, often in ways that we are notconsciously aware of. For both adults and children the environ-ment gives us cues as to what is expected. How the environmentis arranged can also make behaving in certain ways easier orharder. In the late 19605 American researchers Sybil Kritchevsky

LANDSCAPES FOR ] EARNING

and Elisabeth Prescott investigated just this—how does the waythat the environment is organised affect behaviour? 40 yearslater their findings are still relevant:

'What is in a space, a room or a yard, and how it is arrangedcan affect the behaviour of people; it can make it easier to act incertain kinds of ways, harder to act in others...

One of the most effective predictors of program quality [is]physical space...

The higher the quality of space in a centre, the more likelywere teachers to be sensitive and friendly in their manner towardchildren, to encourage children in their self-chosen activities, andto teach consideration for the rights and. feelings of self and oth-ers. Where spatial quality was low, children were less likely to beinvolved and interested, and teachers more likely to be neutralor insensitive in their manner, to use larger amounts of guidanceand restriction, and to teach arbitrary rules of social living.'

Space therefore not only affects children's learning but alsoinfluences how we as adults behave and even how we interactwith children.

The implications of this for how we think about and useour environments are far reaching and yet sadly, are too oftenignored. As Deb Curtis and Margie Carter note:

'Early childhood.program spaces are seldom put together withconscious sustained attention to the values they communicate orthe effect they have on the children and adults who spend theirdays in them.'

We tend instead to take our surroundings for granted and,without the conscious attention that Curtis and Carter urge, it iseasy for children's services to become institutions in the worstsense of the word. For the educators of Reggio Emilia this is theworst possible outcome:

The idea is that we should avoid any choice or solution thatwould make a school building a sterile rather than a living space.'

Look around, be inspired!

In encouraging us to be reflective, the EYLF encourages us to lookclosely at our environments not just in terms of how they meeta set of building standards, or in terms of their functionality, butalso in terms of how they can support our program. So, while

the National Quality Standard assesses the physical environ-ment directly under Quality Area 3 the environment will also bean important contributor to what is happening in Quality Areai - Program and Planning and Quality Area 5 - Relationshipswith Children. Beyond simply thinking about what materials andequipment we set out we need to consider deeper questionsabout how our environments support our implementation of allof the principles and practices contained in the EYLF.

If, for example, we recognise the importance of sustainedshared thinking for learning then we need to consider how ourenvironment supports it actually happening. How does theenvironment promote children and adults engaging deeply witheach other without interruption or distraction from others? if anenvironment is hard to supervise because of its layout, size andshape then this becomes far more difficult. An educator whois constantly having to look over their shoulder to see what ishappening elsewhere is far less likely to be able to engage in ameaningful interaction with a child or small group of children atthe same time-

Similarly, if we value holistic learning then we need to thinkabout how our environment supports it—do we provide mate-rials that are open-ended and flexible and allow children toengage in the kind of complex learning that we know is sovaluable? And does the environment allow children to combineand use different materials in new ways that will enhance theirlearning and understandings?

Or, if we want to provide for continuity of learning, how doesour space allow this to happen? Are children able to leave whatthey are working on and return to it later? Lack of space withinmany (if not most) children's services buildings typically meansthat playrooms are often places where children eat and sleep aswell as play. Such arrangements mean regular interruptions topack away and reorganise the room. If materials are packed awayevery one to two hours, there may be little incentive for childrento engage in complex piay or construction—knowing they haveonly a limited amount of time and that what they do will thenbe packed away. Where spaces are shared there is often littlechance for children to develop longer-term projects which con-tinue from morning to afternoon, let alone those that may con-tinue for days or weeks at a time. If we value the depth of learn-ing that such projects provide then we need to think of ways tocreate spaces that can stay undisturbed for periods of time.

Equally important is how much actual physical space we areable to provide for different experiences. As Kritchevsky and

' | Rattler Autumn 2011

Prescott found, where space is limited educators often findthemselves exercising more control over groups of children toensure harmony and prevent conflict. At the same time there isoften no ability for children to spread out or to find their ownspace. Interruptions and distractions caused by closely adjoiningplay areas mean that children's play may not develop as it couldin a larger space. If,for example, the block area is too small thenhow much opportunity is there for children to build complexand interesting constructions? Or for groups of children to worktogether, or for different groups of children to work on their ownprojects side by side?

If we value autonomy, independence and agency then howdoes our environment allow children to have a degree of controlover their surroundings—where in the environment do they getto make choices about what they play with and how they play?

And what about the importance of natural materials and thechance to engage with natural surroundings? The EYLF and NOSmake clear how important such experiences are and yet manyservices have been designed with little or no natural space. Howcan we bring nature into such environments in a way that ismeaningful and not tokenistic? None of these things are neces-sarily easy to do—especially in services that have been designedto comply only with minimum standards and space require*ments. However if we recognise the importance of the physicalenvironment to what happens in a space then the time andeffort needed to create rich, engaging and beautiful environ-ments becomes worthwhile. Equally, when we recognise the vitalrole that the environment plays in either supporting or hinderingour work with children, we can start to consider our environmentin a broader way—not just in terms of what goes where, or how

- . -

^f :

it looks, but in terms of how it can promote and guide children'slearning and relationships.

LukeTouhil! works as a project officer with Community ConnectionsSolutions Australia (CCSA). He has over 15 years experience as a teacher,director and manager in a range of early childhood settings. Luke hasa strong interest in service design and the physical environments ofchildren's services. His Ph.D. from Macquarie University investigated thedesign of children's services in Australia.

ReferencesCurtis, D. & Carter, M. (2003) Designs for living and learning:

Transforming early childhood environments. St Paui, MM: Redleaf PressGreenman, J. (2005) Caring spaces, 'learningplaces-. Children's

environments that work (2nd edition). Redmond, WA: Exchange PressKritchevsky, S. & Prescott, E. with Walling, L (1977) Planning

environments for young children.- Physical space (2nd Edition).Washington, DC NAEYC.

The Early YearsLearning FrameworkProfessional Learning Program

REGISTER NOWwww.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/eylfplp

Early ChildhoodAustraliaA voice for young children

EYLF Professional Learning Workshops

REGISTRATIONS NOW OPEN

65 EYLF Professional Learning Workshopsare about to take place across urban andregional Australia, to assist early childhoodeducation and care professionals to betterunderstand and implement the EYLF.

Workshop benefits include:

a practical, hands-on experience that will helpyou to implement the EYLF in your service

facilitators who are knowledgeable andexperienced early childhood experts

opportunities to develop support networkswith other EC professionals in your region

free resource materials

travel subsidy* (conditions apply)

lunch and refreshments

a certificate of attendance.

ECA has been funded by the Australian Government Department of Education,Employment and Workplace Relations to implement the EYLFPLP.