I have posted here before that I was in the planning stages of a piece of Research which would aim to determine whether or not learning to use a knife would help children develop their dexterity and strength.
I conducted this research as part of my studies towards a Masters Degree in Outdoor Education and this is the write up of that research but as you'll see it didn't take me long to become distracted by my main research aim and start to consider other things.
 |
| Children can do all sorts of constructive things with knives if they are given the chance |
The Original Research Question
The original aim of my research was to
address the question of whether allowing children to regularly use
knives for craft activities would increase their grip strength. The
potential implications of any increased grip strength could include
an improved ability to perform extended writing tasks, improved
manual skill in age appropriate tasks such as getting dressed and
cutting food (DOT, 2005).
I was originally motivated to
address this particular issue because I feel that in the UK children
are not normally given access to knives, there may be a number of
reasons for this in our modern society, perhaps we don’t feel they
are necessary in everyday life any more, perhaps we are concerned
that children will hurt themselves or perhaps it is because we think
of knives as weapons.
However I am inclined to think
that a child who has been given supervised access to a knife and
opportunities to learn how to use it safely and creatively will
develop a better, safer attitude to knives than someone who has never
been allowed to use one and instead has always been told they are
weapons? Couple that with the prominent leisure activity of shooting,
stabbing and battering virtual enemies to death on a games console
and is it any wonder that young people firstly think of knives as
weapons not tools?
I thought it would be interesting
to research whether introducing the use of knives and tools to
children from a younger age aids their development of fine motor
skills, but unfortunately when you use popular academic search
engines the first results to appear always seem to have titles like
'teen charged with having knife at school' or 'weapons carrying on
school property'. Forest School initiatives are doing a fantastic job
of redressing the balance and teach children how to safely use
knives, bill hooks, saws and other tools. If only there was more
encouragement for children and young people to learn to use knives
and tools it would surely help development of dexterity, confidence
and a sense of creativity.
Whatever the reason that children
are not normally allowed to use knives; it may be that we are
actually depriving children of opportunities to develop a responsible
attitude towards knives, an understanding of the risks associated
with using them and how to protect themselves by developing a safe
technique. Imagine also the further developmental potential of
helping children learn to use knives: The self confidence that will
come from being able to use a tool which they think is very ‘grown
up’, and the satisfaction of being able to do or make something
with a knife. What I’m particularly interested in though is the
potential physical development in terms of dexterity and fine motor
skill which may come from regular use of knives and hand tools. Other
cultures seem to introduce knives to children from a younger age and
we can presume that this exposure will equip them with the skills to
use that knife. Eventually our young children will need to use a
knife in a kitchen or for other activities and I planned an
experiment to test whether strength can be developed and improved as
a result of knife use over a period of time.
However had I considered this
question more carefully from the outset I would probably not have
chosen it. The reason is two-fold:
Firstly; if I had reviewed the
literature more thoroughly I could have found plenty of sources which
explain that extended periods of exercise will increase physical
capacity whether that's in terms of fitness or strength.
If I could have answered my
question just with a literature review it should have followed that
exposing children to the kind of activities I had planned would
result in an improvement of fitness and/or strength. If the
literature already exists which could have supported my hypothesis I
perhaps should have focused my efforts elsewhere and chosen a
different question to address. Additionally if an investigation of
the question I did choose was ever to yield meaningful results I
should have paid greater attention to the existing literature
regarding physical development and exercise to help me develop an
intervention that could
be effective and a more rigorous method of assessing development over
the course of the study (I will discuss this in greater depth later
in the section on methods and research design). Although
it may have led to a more effective intervention in terms of
promoting physical development basing the intervention on the theory
and practice of physical development would have taken this project
outside of my comfort zone and the normal ethos of my practice, my
work normally revolves around nature engagement, bushcraft and
traditional skills so rather than use these activities as a method of
facilitation I wanted to see if they would effect a child's physical
development without being modified or adapted for use as
'developmental' activities but just used as they are, simple craft
activities with the primary objective of creating something.
From a personal perspective; I
find it very hard to concentrate on research unless I feel I am
finding something worthwhile, or even ground-breaking and new. I
realise that this may not always be realistic, but once I had decided
that the answer to my research question was obvious even without the
data I would collect I didn’t feel inspired by that particular
question any more. Without that inspiration and desire to carry on
with the research I found it harder to concentrate on data collection. I became disaffected
with my original question I felt less and less inclined to ensure the
faithful implementation of the method I had originally devised and
had I chosen a question I could relate to better or which I felt had
lasting value I may have got more, in terms of results, from this
project.
Secondly, I was motivated to
address this particular research question motivated by a personal
conviction that teaching children manual skills and providing
opportunities for them to use tools which they might not normally
have access to nowadays is important.
However in an attempt to force
this vague question into a quantitative methodology, rather than
conducting a qualitative study which seems to be the more popular
approach in educational research; I lost interest in it.
As my first degree is in a
science subject (Countryside and Wildlife Management and Ecology) I
tend to favour quantitative research to avoid the potential
subjectivity of qualitative analysis. This is always the approach
that has been promoted within that discipline and if you look at a
collection of the most influential research in wildlife management it
is almost all of a quantitative nature and any hint of subjectivity
in the presentation of the research would devalue it. However in
retrospect had I taken a qualitative approach to this research I
could have addressed some much more valuable questions than the one I
chose. I suppose my attitude that quantitative research is
better/more valuable than qualitative stems from a hard science based
episteme that there is one truth which can be determined by the
proving or disproving of a hypothesis; rather than multiple realities
or truths which might exist or co-exist simultaneously. These truths
may be very subjective depending on the perspective that reality is
viewed from. To make observations about them requires a qualitative
approach and the ability of the researcher to analyse qualitative
results objectively rather than to simplify a multidimensional
problem into a single question or null-hypothesis. If I had been open
to other research methods while I was proposing this project I may
have been able to devise a more interesting question to address which
would have kept my interest for longer and inspired my interest more
than the question I did choose. For example I could have looked at
changes in children’s confidence levels, children’s and parents
perceptions of knives as tools/weapons or any number of other
questions. Had I chosen one of these questions I may have been able
to gather more significant results, not only significant from a
research or statistical perspective, but in terms of the potential
impact and value of the results to my
future practice.
Methods
and Research Design
In evaluating my choice of method
and the quality of my research design I will address two main points:
First; the suitability of the
method and research design I used to address the question I chose.
My research was originally going
to involve two methods to address two distinct questions; whether or
not using knives and tools helps children develop strength and
dexterity. This would not be considered triangulation in the
traditional research sense as triangulation normally involves two
methods providing evidence to support or disprove the same
hypothesis. In retrospect this broader question would have allowed me
to make observations about the kind of applied or practical dexterity
which I was interested in. However in preparing for this piece of
research I took the decision to limit this to just grip strength as I
felt it was a bigger factor in the kind of development I hypothesise
would occur as a result of the intervention I delivered. I decided
this due to the fact that, as Fleishman and Hempel found in their
1954 study, the majority of the commonly used dexterity tests do not
test a combination of strength and dexterity but rather fine motor
dexterity. Although there are a range of factors which contribute to
that strength was not found to be one of them.
What I was really interest in was
applied dexterity, the kind of dexterity that will be of benefit when
practical tasks are being carried out; the kind of tasks that I have
seen students unable to perform in the past. I have seen students of
sixteen years of age, and even older, unable to cut
a straight line with a saw or hammer in a nail. This was the kind of
dexterity and strength I wanted the children to develop as a result
of the intervention I put in place. All the dexterity tests I could
find though didn’t measure this applied dexterity, there has
in-fact been some disagreement over the suitability of peg board
style tests for the measurement of dexterity
in the first place
(Backman et al, 1992). Rather these tests dealt with fine motor
skills in isolation with activities such as placing pegs in a board
/or manoeuvring wooden blocks. This was the reason I wanted to
include something in my method to measure strength as well as
dexterity but in aid of a simple, easy to execute project I decided
just to measure strength. While simpler to execute this has left me
with results that do not prove what I had hoped to.
I had originally considered using
a test of my own invention to measure this 'applied dexterity' and in
retrospect I think I should have, although that then raises the
question of whether unrecognised tests or methods devalue the
research. That is ultimately the reason that I chose not to use my
test but it would have been a very simple and easy test to carry out.
All it would have involved is each week each child would sharpen a
pencil with a knife, this could then be timed and the quality of the
job assessed. This could have been very subjective but with some
simple research design beforehand could have been quite an effective
way of showing a child's development over time and would have
addressed both strength and dexterity.
To address the question and
method I did use though rather than focusing on alternative options;
I chose to use a grip strength dynamometer to test the grip strength
of the children participating in this research at the beginning of
every session (over a period of six sessions) to test the null
hypothesis;
Ho
= learning to
use knives and tool has no effect on children’s grip strength.
The use
of the hand grip strength dynamometer was adequate, although as I
have explained already all it can tell me all it can tell me is
whether or not a child's grip strength has improved rather than
providing insight into whether their 'applied dexterity' has
improved, which is what interested me in the first place. Also the
six week period with an hour and a half to two hours with the
children each week did not give the children enough exposure to the
activities to cause any statistically significant change.
The use of a control group is
vital to the success of this kind of research, when measuring the
effects of an intervention (University of Oxford, n.d), and although
a control group was tested to make any meaningful comparison it would
also be necessary to careful consider the type of groups being
tested. For example if one group is from a rural school where
children are involved in farm chores, gardening fishing etc.. and
another from an urban school where children might have less
opportunity to take part in manual chores or labour there may be a
significant difference in results and should be taken into account
when discussing results and drawing conclusions. Although the control
group and intervention group were both very close together,
geographically and in terms of the demographics of the group I should
still have done some kind of survey to ascertain what external
factors may already be influencing grip strength in the children
taking part, either as part of the control group or intervention
group.
The activities I eventually
delivered in this intervention differed slightly from the activities
I originally proposed and I will explain them here including some
explanation of why they were chosen and a brief evaluation of the
overall suitability of each session in addressing the research
question.
|
Session
|
Activity
|
|
|
1
|
Willow necklace/bracelet
making, using knives and mallets:
This
activity was intended as an easy introduction to knives and
tools. It introduced the knives the children would be using
throughout the sessions and also the mallets that they would be
using. The idea with the mallets was to allow the children to
perform tasks which they would otherwise have been incapable of
as they are not strong enough. They can use the mallets to strike
the back of their knives and perform larger tasks such as
splitting and chopping wood. It is also a good safety measure as
it gives the children something to do with both hands, holding
the knife in one hand and the mallet in another, or teaming up
with another child, each one holding the knife and mallet double
handed. This keeps the children’s hands away from the sharp
edge and point of the knife.
|
|
2
|
Making marshmallow sticks,
toasting forks and skewers for camp fire cooking.
As
well as being fun being preparing for a camp fire gets students
used to making wood shavings which will lead into a later session
and sharpening a point on a stick which requires the same sort of
movements and application of strength as all sorts of everyday
tasks such as peeling vegetables and sharpening pencils.
Sharpening the sticks could also be differentiated for children
who were not strong enough by using the mallets to make three
angled cuts producing a point on the stick.
|
|
3
|
Wooden lollipop/stick
figures;
This
activity introduced the children to the use of a brace and bit to
drill holes as well as applying the skills of making wood
shavings that they learned in the previous sessions. Having to
keep the wood shavings attached to the stick they were working on
was a new challenge and demanded that they learned enough control
and developed enough strength to stop the movement of the knife
at the appropriate place.
|
|
4
|
‘timber
sports’ log sawing competition and shuttle darts:
This
activity introduced a new tool and an element of competition as
well as capitalising on the two previous sessions work to make a
‘dart’ using the same method of producing wood shavings in
earlier sessions. This activity does have really strength and
stamina building potential but not specifically related to grip
strength.
|
|
5
|
Kazoos:
This
activity tied in a lot of the skills the children had learned in
earlier sessions to make a simple musical instrument. They were
able to split wood, use the combination of knife and mallet,
shave, score and chop.
|
|
6
|
Fire
Lighting etc..
|
|
|
As
a final activity the children processed firewood, lit fires, made
toasting forks and skewer’s and cooked on the fire.
|
I think I could have selected
activities which would have been more suitable to aid the development
of grip strength but I was keen to keep the activities focussed on
producing something at the end and introducing new skills and
experiences to the children rather than purely facilitating grip
strength development. With this approach I think a much longer
programme of activities would be needed to see a significant change
in grip strength whereas if the activities had been specifically
selected for grip strength development a more marked change might
have been noticeable after the end of this short six week programme.
Second; alternative methods
and research designs I could have used to address the alternative
questions that I think
might have been more interesting or valuable to investigate.
In choosing to frame my research
question in such a way that it demanded a quantitative approach I
limited what I could discover from this research. If I had taken a
qualitative approach to this research I could have made some more
interesting observations and been more engaged in a project that I
thought was worthwhile. A few examples of alternative methods and
research designs I could have implemented, had I chosen a different
question are;
If I had asked the question; Does
parental perception of knives change if their children are allowed to
participate in craft activities using knives and hand tools?
I could have used focus groups and questionnaires to address the
question and determine if parents viewed knives, or the idea of their
children being allowed to use knives, differently between the
commencement and conclusion of a period of exposure to activities
where they were allowed to use knives. The activities could have been
exactly the same as the ones I chose for the question I did address
but the research method it’self would have been different.
If I had asked the question; Does
access to ‘dangerous’ tools develop risk perception in children?
I could have used field notes and observation or video diaries to
determine how the children reacted to the risks of using knives over
time and their level of care and attention to their own and their
peers safety during the sessions.
If I had asked the question; Do
children develop a greater understanding of natural materials and
sustainability through taking part in craft activities?
I could have used simple questionnaires to gauge the change in
understanding between the commencement and conclusion of the scheme
of activities.
These questions would have been
interesting and may have held my interest more than the project I
eventually delivered.
Implementation
and Ethical Issues
The results of this research did
not allow me to reject my null hypothesis although I did implement
the method as closely as the circumstances allowed. Here I will
briefly summarise my findings and make some observations regarding
the implementation of the project.
In summary the results of this
project did not demonstrate that the intervention I delivered had any
significant impact on a child’s grip strength. However this is more
likely due to the ineffectiveness of the specific intervention than
anything else. The practical implementation of the project went quite
smoothly, the group I worked with were very keen to get involved with
most of the activities and the teachers at the host school were very
supportive and interested in what I was delivering and have in actual
fact invited me to continue my involvement with the school and help
design some ‘woodland’ learning resources for their play ground.
Making arrangements for parental permission and permission from the
school was fairly strait forward. The school dealt with all the
permission forms and communications with parents which saved me time
and were also able to provide first aid facilities and a first aider
which gave me less things to have to organise myself. The execution
of the sessions went very smoothly on all occasions and I was able to
set up my equipment while the children arrived for their day at
school and begin the activities first thing in the morning. There
were no major behavioural issues to deal with during any of the
sessions except occasional over-excitement from a few of the children
but teaching staff or learning assistants were always present to
support me in dealing with the children so I could focus on the
activity.
When comparing the control group
to the group which took part in the intervention there was no
significant difference in the development of strength from group to
group. However some observations could be made based on the progress
of the group taking part in the intervention that might indicate that
should the intervention have continued for a longer period some more
significant results may have been possible. I will explain some of
these observations in this section as I evaluate the implementation
of this project.
Duration
There were some minor indications
that the intervention may have had an effect, however without
continuing the programme of activities for longer there is no way to
tell conclusively. Although this particular research project was only
designed to last six weeks it should have been obvious to me that
significant results would probably be hard to find after such a short
period with fairly limited exposure (1.5 hours per week) to the
exercises and activities within that six week period. Over a longer
period the limited weekly exposure to the activities may have had a
greater effect and been measureable.
Schedule
It would have been ideal to have
had an un-interrupted six week period to deliver this programme,
however, half term holidays and other interruptions meant that there
were a few weeks where the programme was not delivered, although six
weeks’ worth of sessions were delivered it actually took place over
a nine week period rather than six. This not only pushed the
completion date of the project back but also meant that there were
some gaps of two weeks between sessions. This may have impacted the
development of the students. The schedule of activities was also far
too short, one hour and a half exposure to these activities per week
for six weeks is not enough to produce significant increase in
strength.
Group size
I had originally planned to
dedicate a whole morning to teaching one group, however, due to the
class size (20) I had to divide the class in two and deliver an
identical hour and a half long session to two groups rather than
having a longer period with one group.
This may have impacted the
outcomes of the intervention as six hour and a half sessions spread
over nine weeks was never going to have the same impact as six three
hour sessions. With each child spending less time working with the
knives the potential benefit was clearly going to be less. Although
activities of this length, an hour and a half instead of three, may
actually have been better suited to this age group. I think it would
have been hard to hold the children’s attention for three hours
with the kind of activities I was delivering in a playground
environment. In a wood or forest it would have been different because
the environment it’ self would have helped to engage the children
and the activity could have included the chance to search for and
collect the material needed for the various craft activities and
would easily have filled a three hour session whereas in a playground
where I provided all the necessary material three hours may have been
too long. A group size of twenty could have been dealt with if an
additional instructor had been available.
Apparatus
The hand strength dynamometer
which I used for this research was not really suitable for the age
group in question. It was a digital model which would take an average
reading of strength based on a person squeezing it for a few seconds.
However this did not prove to be easy for children of this age group
and in the first few sessions several struggled to grip the apparatus
for long enough to give a good reading. This did lead to an
interesting observation over the period that more students were able
to get a good reading from the apparatus as the weeks went on than
were able at the beginning (see figure 1 below). However this may
have had more to do with the fact that they were getting used to
using the dynamometer rather than any real increase in strength.
Figure 1; Graph showing the
number of effective readings produced through proper use of hand
strength dynamometer over time in the intervention group.
This might indicate that
a small improvement in strength was occurring but it also may just be
down to the fact the children were getting used to using the
dynamometer. Without further investigation it would be impossible to
say conclusively.
There is more literature
available that I could have used to determine which type of
dynamometer was most suitable for the group in question such as
Amaral, Mancini and Novo
Júnior’s 2012 paper comparing different types of dynamometer and
identifying factors which influence the reliability of results when
using dynamometers. Had I considered this fully before I commenced
with the research I may have been able to select more suitable
apparatus. However another limiting factor in this research was the
expense of equipment so even if I had spent time selecting a more
appropriate design of dynamometer before the commencement of the
research there is no guarantee that I would have been able to afford
the equipment.
Ethical Issues
Most of the ethical issues
associated with this project were addressed before the commencement
of the intervention and were largely associated with health and
safety issues and parental permission for their children to
participate in the research. The school dealt with parental
permission forms both to gain permission for the children to
participate in the activities I proposed and also to allow me to
gather data on their participation.
I had anticipated more resistance
from parents to the idea of letting their children use knives as part
of my sessions but in fact no child was excluded from the sessions
due to a lack of parental permission.
Some further ethical issues which
arose during the project included;
One child had early onset
arthritis and who was unable to kneel or sit on the ground for
extended periods, this was not disclosed to me prior to the
commencement of the sessions, although the school were of course
aware of it. This meant that in the first session I had not
differentiated the activity to take her specific needs into account.
This was not a problem in future sessions as I have dealt with
students with similar needs before and have strategies for dealing
with them but in the first session she did struggle and we had to use
a chair from one of the classrooms for her to sit on. As the sessions
progressed though I was able to differentiate the activities slightly
and provide specialised apparatus for her to use to allow her to take
part fully.
A couple of the sessions included
camp fire cooking which I had not anticipated being a problem as all
relevant information on children’s allergies had been given me by
the school. However there were several children who did not want to
eat what we cooked on the camp fire This proved a problem as those
who didn’t want to eat felt left out that there were not additional
options for them. I would normally be inclined to consider this as an
opportunity to improve children’s confidence and provide novel
experiences and get them out of their comfort zone. However in this
instance, as the children involved were so young they may have felt
excluded from the activity. This is not really something I could do
anything about and I still feel that children should be encouraged to
try new things, campfire cooking for example.
Implications
for Practice
Whatever the criticisms I can
make of the rational, choice of method and execution of this piece of
research the lessons I have learned which I will be able to apply to
my future practice have been enormously valuable: Both in terms of my
practice as an educator but also in my academic practice as I
progress to further study and hopefully also pursue more research
opportunities in the future.
Although the findings of this
research did not allow me to reject my null-hypothesis that very fact
has encouraged me to be more thorough as I prepare for future
research projects. It has also helped me realise the value of a
thorough literature review and the need to use that literature review
to determine where there are gaps in existing knowledge which could
be filled by new research.
Another key impact on my practice
is that I have a new regard for qualitative research methods, as I
have explained I felt before that quantitative research was more
significant than qualitative. Now that I have conducted this
experiment and seen no support for my hypothesis using quantitative
methods, although as I explained above I think that was down to flaws
in the execution of the research, primarily that it was too short. I
did notice a lot of things while delivering the sessions with the
children which, if I had been using qualitative analyses methods such
as narrative enquiry, questionnaires or similar I could have made
some meaning of. So I will not automatically favour a quantitative
approach to research in the future.
One of the key impacts that this
project will have on my future academic practice is that I have
decided that my interests lie firmly within the realm of
environmental education, nature awareness, traditional countryside
skills and 'bushcraft' rather than on the physical, performance and
sport element of outdoor education. This is a very valuable lesson
for me that I may not have learned any other way than through
conducting this research. I have harboured an interest for a while in
whether or not practising practical knife and tool skills with
children will help them develop strength and dexterity but found
through doing this project that when I was actually working with the
children I was far more interested in their reaction to learning
about the different types of wood they were working with and their
awareness, or lack thereof, of the materials we were taking from
nature. This is going to be important as I prepare to undertake
future projects and choose subjects I wish to study and research over
a long period of time.
As for how I can apply my
experiences of conducting this project to my future practice and
delivery of educational programmes of learning; I will separate those
lessons into a number of categories;
Environment;
By this I mean the environment
where the activities take place rather than the wider concept of 'the
environment' in the sense that it is used when we are talking about
environmental education. These activities were delivered to school
children outside but in a largely man made environment, on a piece of
artificial turf surrounded by a tarmac playing surface and a metal
fence. Although there were some trees in the school grounds which we
could see and talk about. This kind of programme of learning would
have benefited enormously from taking place in a more natural area.
I have been involved in teaching
bushcraft and environmental education for several years including at
secondary and primary schools but in the past my approach has always
been to ensure that I could use local nature reserves, woodlands or
farms as a location, I didn’t do that this time and think the
children would have gained more from the sessions had I done so.
As my original question related
to the physical development of the children the setting or
environment in which the sessions took place was not as crucial as it
would have been had my goal been to develop some kind of appreciation
of nature or the environment. However in terms of the overall benefit
of the programme I delivered to the children I think they would have
learned a lot more from the sessions if they had been able to harvest
their own materials for their craft projects and learn to recognise
the trees and plants they were using first hand rather than just
being able to talk about where the wood they were using came from.
This would have allowed the experiences they were gaining to be
situated (Lave & Wenger 1991) in the appropriate environment
rather then delivered at a distance and in a very different setting
from the things we were talking about. In the future I will ensure
that I can always deliver this kind of activity in the appropriate
environment as I agree strongly with (references) that the
environment in which education takes place is key to the success of
that education.
It was clear from some of the
questions that the children were asking during sessions that they
would have benefited from being in a woodland environment. All the
materials they were using in the activities I was delivering came
from a managed woodland and when they asked what a certain tree
looked like it would have been much easier to be able to take them to
that tree and show it to them rather than try and describe it.
Although the descriptions they went away with were not entirely
without value as I heard one comment from a child to a parent after
one session along the lines of; “we need to look out for a tree
with catkins because that's a hazel tree and that’s what nutella's
made from”. So what they were learning was obviously sinking in.
But the woodland environment would have made those experiences all
the more real.
Nature:
Having decided that this
programme would not have been any better than any number of other's
which involved the use of practical hand tools at developing
children’s strength and dexterity what could the programme offer?
If this programme of activities
was carried out in the right environment as I explained above it
would be an excellent way to connect children with nature; the twenty
children who took part in the sessions could all by the end of the
six weeks name at least three tree species, some five, and recognise
them from their bark or the texture and patterns of their wood. This
is impressive from a generation of children who statistically have
less opportunities to play outside and in 'the woods' than any other
generation before them (Louv 2010).
During the sessions I was able to
talk to the students about all sorts of nature and environmental
topics such as woodland management, plant, tree and bird ID, food
chains, pollution and agriculture to name just a few.
What this programme provided
which most nature engagement programmes don't is that the children
gained an understanding of how nature could provide resources for
them. If the programme was extended it would be strait forward to
include sustainability as a key theme and touch on how wood can be
sustainably sourced and harvested. Some environmental education
programmes, perhaps the more radical ones, base their approach to
sustainability on principles of non-intervention being the
appropriate way for humans to interact with nature. This is an
irresponsible attitude to have and even more irresponsible to foster
it in younger generations. If children can learn about sustainable
management of woodlands and permaculture through programmes like
this then maybe they can not only gain a greater appreciation for
nature and the natural environment and wildlife of the places they
live in but also develop an understanding of how to get what they
need from those environments without harming them.
Parental Engagement;
Over the last year or so I have
become convinced that if real changes are going to be seen in
children’s attitudes, and the attitude of society as a whole to
nature and the environment, then those changes will begin with
parents. It’s all down to exposure to those things, the hour and a
half a week for six weeks that I had with these children was not
enough to see a change in their physical grip strength and as much as
I think they learned more about trees, wood and the environment than
they developed their grip strength I doubt that the distance
travelled from the start of the programme to the finish in terms of
their environmental knowledge and connection with nature would be
considered significant. Long term exposure to these subjects is the
key and although some programmes exist which try and provide this
kind of exposure to nature and the natural environment, Forest
Schools for example, the optimal length of a forest school programme
is deemed to be the length of a schools year, thirty to forty weeks
(Forest School Training, n.d), that only accounts to a few hours a
week of a child's time. Surely children would benefit from even more
exposure than that and in a setting that they are entirely
comfortable with and which forms part of their recreation rather than
'school'. If parents and carers can become engaged with these sorts
of outdoor nature based activities then they are much more likely to
share it with their children.
While the school where I
delivered this programme were very accommodating and the teacher of
the class in question was very supportive and willing to allow the
children to participate I can imagine that this would not be the case
at all schools. We operated on a 2:10 staff student ratio while they
were using knives and tools and I can imagine that at this young age
that would not be considered acceptable by every organisation.
Although it did work very successfully with this group and the ratio
seemed entirely appropriate; as I discussed earlier in the
implementation and ethics section. This issue with staff:student
ratios and supervision is another reason to involve parents, as when
parents are involved with delivering these kinds of activities to
their children is that they are in a better position to give close
supervision to activities which involve knives, tools and fire.
I had several comments from
parents or teachers over the course of this project about the items
the children took home with them. Some comments to the effect that
they looked forward to seeing what their child brought home each week
and others asking what they could do at home to keep the children
entertained/engaged at home with the kind of activities I had been
doing with them at school.
The interest from parents was a
surprise as I suppose I had convinced myself that most people were
not interested or even considered what I was doing with the children
irresponsible or dangerous. It was really encouraging to hear these
comments and since the conclusion of the sessions at Wyche Primary
School I have put some thought into how I could facilitate some sort
of parent and child woodland/nature experience.
References
Amaral. J.F, Mancini. M, Novo
Junior. J. M (2012) Comparison
of three hand dynamometers in relation to the accuracy and precision
of the measurements. Rev
Bras Fisioter, São
Carlos, v. 16, n. 3, p. 216-24,
Backman, C. Cork, S. Gibson, D.
Parsons, J. (1992) Assessment of Hand Function: The Relationship
between Pegboard Dexterity and Applied Dexterity. Canadian
Journal of Occupational Therapy.
Vol 59. no. 4. pgs 208-213.
Department of Occupational
Therapy (2005) Occupational Therapy – Kids health information,
Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne.
Fleishman.
E. A & Hempel. W. E (1954) A Factor Analysis of Dexterity Tests,
Personnel
Psychology Vol
7 (1) pgs 15-32.
Lave. J,
Wenger. E (1991) Situated
Learning; Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Cambridge; Cambridge University Press.
Louv. R
(2010) Last
Child in the Woods; Saving our children from nature deficit disorder.
Chapel Hill. Algonquin Books.
