A

W
O
N
D
E

A
naMari
a
Cali
n

A WONDERFUL DAY

A. HOLISTIC THEORETICAL FOUNDATION FOR ENTIRE SMTTE MODEL

About outdoor in pedagogical work
Different theories about learning and also practical experiences among pedagogues show
that in outdoor environments are provided a lot of opportunities for learning in nature. The
following theories will be first describe here and named in the SMTTE with a different colour,
when they can be connected with parts of it.
We name and describe briefly here theories like:

The theory of constructivism (Piaget): an epistemologic theory must contain two

fundamental facts: coherence of thinking and connection to reality. (Crahay, 2009).
Frobels theories and ideas about kindergarten: a child may experience its
surroundings through play and its urged to express himself in its surroundings(Hygum,
2014, p.13).
Vygotskys theory (ZONE OF PROXIMAL DEVELOPMENT): the transformation
of the exterior to an interior level will only succeed through interaction with other
people. This means that in cooperation with adults and other children, the individual
child succeeds in handling interior and exterior activities( Brostrm, 2006).
Wegners social learning theory or what he calls shared learning. What Wenger
(2014) presents in his theory components as : practice, comunity, identity, significance,
all are related to different kinds of learning : learning as activity, inquiry, becoming and
affiliation. (p.382).
Berit Baes mutual recognition theory: being able to shift from ones own perspective
to that of the other, and to confirm the others right to his or her own experience. Shifting
perspectives presupposes selfreflexivity in the sense that one is able to differentiate what
goes on in ones own self from what goes on in others(Bae, 2012).
Deweys experienced learning: an onthological construct anchored in natural and
social environments that sustains experience as a tranzaction between subject (child)and
world (surroundings) (Elkjaer, 2014, p.152).
Kolbs experienced learning: Learning is the process in which knowledge are created
within the transformation of experience(Elkjaer, 2014, p.154, apud.Kolb, 1984, p.38).
Tanggaards theory about creativity: creativity is about all large and small
transgressions of the everyday practices(Jensen, 2014, p. 39).

B. A SMTTE MODEL FOR A PROPOSED OUTDOOR ACTIVITY

Location: VIA University College Campus, Holstebro
Target groups age: 6 boys with ages 4-5 years
Institution: Fillosofen Kindergarten
1. Context and Location (Sammenhng)
1.1 Context of development

Children beeing outside achive knowledges of the natural environment around them and
also that can consolidate their team working skills. (Dewey and Kolbs experienced learning,
Vygotskys ZPD (zone of proximal development).
Outside activities have a major contribution regarding the development of motricity,
creativity and kinestetic sense of the children.
Capacity of focusing is also developed during that sort of outside activities. (Piaget).
1.2 Physical context (Location)
VIA University College Campus.
The activities will start in an inside environment (a room in the campus) and will
continue and end in an outdoor natural environment (inside VIA campus).
2. Goals (Ml)

2.1 Consolidating the team working skills of the children.(Wenger)

2.2 Developing the social skills inside the group with the help of team work.
(Wenger, Bae, Vygotsky)
2.3 Achieving a common understanding of the task (assignment) and all help to
carry it out in a team-work.(Dewey, Kolb, Wenger, Piaget, Frobel)
2.4 Getting the children used to activities in nature environment (outdoor
education).(Piaget, Bae, Dewey, Kolb, Vygotsky, Frobel)

3. Actions(Tiltag)
3.1 NAME GAME
Duration: 10-15 minutes. All participating after saying their names, observe.
Participants: Students and children
Activity description: Action: in a room from VIA campus. We will present ourselves (smiling,
with the purpose of making children feel safe with us and make them confortable). We will ask
them to present themselves, and we will put them bagdes with their names. We will have badges
with our names during all day.
PROCEEDED: The activity took place indoors, in a VIA campus classroom. When we had a
few anxious children, it ended up that we just said our names. Then they got their headbands
with the name and panda face on.The game went well, but there should have been more focus on
the quieter children, to give them a chance to be more involved.
THEORIES: Bae, Dewey.
Observation: Sociogram (Qualitative). We will see if there is be a change in their body
language, level of activity and interaction with each other.
Narratives (Quantitative). We will observe the different situation we are going to put the
children in.
3.2 FACE PAINTING AND WHISPER GAME
Duration: 20 minutes. Trine and Gabriella paint, Christie plays whisper game, Anna and Martin
observe.

Participants: Students and children.

Activity description: Two of the students will paint children with face painting. They will be
painted with a panda face. One student will make whispers while the children will wait for their
turn to be painted. They all will take turns to join in whisper game and to be painted.
PROCEEDED:The whisper game did not went as planned, and it was quickly turned into a
facepainting of more than two children at a time. The face paint went well.
THEORIES: Frobel, Tanggaard.
Observation: For the face painting and whisper game we choose sociogram because we want to
see the interaction between children, how they complete the task, how they play together and the
language they use in the conversation between them.
In the narrative method we want to see if the children are enjoying the game and if they are
happy about the face painting. Also, we will observe if the children discuss about their animal
with each other.
3.3. ANIMAL DANCE
Duration: 10 minutes. Trine observe in writing, Christie filming, Martin observe inside the
game, and explain what will happen, Anna and Gabriella danced with.
Participants: Students and children.
Activity description: After we know each other and we paint the faces, we will help the children
to get in their outdoor clothes and after that we have to go outside, but not walking normally.
Each children would have to walk or jump in the way that walks or jumps an animal.
PROCEEDED: After we have got used to one another and the shyness was smashed, we took the
clothes on and got ready to go outside. Before, we had to find the way we should walk. A student
asked how a panda moves or dances and the children made different moves. It ended up that we
went outside as a kung fu panda.
THEORIES: Frobel, Piaget, Wenger, Bae, Dewey, Kolb)
Observation: Sociogram: we will focus on verbal and non-verbal reactions. The activity will
show how liberated they are.
Narrative: the method will make it valuable in our research to describe the activity on our
own words and interpret the situation on their experiences.
3.4. TOXIC EARTH
Duration: 30 minutes. Martin participate and explain. Others observe: Christie films, Trine
and Gabi writes, Anna takes pictures.
Participants: Students as facilitators and children as participants.
Activity description: Out in a part of the campus will be prepared a space with different
things (chairs, benches, plastic bags, pieces of tree, bunches of leaves) and the children will
supposed to pass only on the things existed, and not direcly to the ground. The game will be
played in pairs: one will walk and the other will help him/her from the ground by giving him the
hand or guide the partener. They will take turn in the pair and the other that played already will
become a guidance and helper partner.

PROCEEDED: Outside we had made an obstacle course ready to play, with a lot of different
things that kids should come on and help each other in pairs to come through the field. We first
show how they can help each. The rules were changed during the game. Not all of them wanted
to play in pairs, but they liked it, so they tried again and again.
The students could have been better focused on the children to help each other and cooperate
in pairs.
THEORIES: Piaget, Bae, Frobel, Wenger, Tanggaard, Vygotsky.
Observation: For this activity we will use sociogram because we want to observe how the
children interact, how they split the task, if they are helping each other to reach the goal, if they
like to play in pairs, if they speak or if they choose a leader.
In the narrative method we will describe the children reaction in the natural environment,
how they support each other in the activity, if they try to cheat the teacher or if they play
according with the instruction. Also, if they understand the game.
3.5. SENSORIAL EXPERIENCE
Duration: 20 minutes. Martin participating, Christie filming, Gabi writes, Trine participanting,
Anna takes pictures.
Participants: Students as facilitators and children as participants.
Activity description: The children will gather different elements from nature: leaves, stones,
sticks, flowers, soil, muss, grass. They will touch the elements, feel their texture on their skin or
parts of the body, thickness, softness, smell the elements, watch the colours and talk about what
they see, how it feels, what forms the elements have, where in the nature we can find them. After
the sensorial experience they will gather in a box a lot more of each element.
PROCEEDED: The children went and found some different elements from nature, leaves,
stones, branches, etc. They got together a whole bunch of different things (even things we did
not expect, like alluminium cans), who were gathered in a packed bag. The sensory component
fell slightly to ground due to the concentration on the gathering things. We went, after we had
gathered a lot of elements, in the bonfire to make the collage. Two students went before to the
bonfire to make the fire.
There should have been a little better explanation of what the activity meant. It could
have been done by letting them run around a bit and then call them together to sit down and look
up and then explain. The same applies to the sensorial part. It was barely present and the
children's development of expressing themselves and what they feel did not reached the
expectations.
THEORIES: Bae, Dewey, Kolb, Vygotsky, Piaget, Wenger.
Observation: Sociogram: it will help us to see how children work together to find things and
help each other to feel the different things.
Narrative: it will be valuable for our research to ask questions about their experiences of
nature in general, when they are sitting and doing something creative on their own criterias.
3.6. GROUP PROJECT-NATURE VISION COLLAGE
Duration: 25 minutes. Martin takes pictures, Christie films,
participanting, Anna writes.

Trine participanting, Gabi

Participants: Students as facilitators and children as participants.

Activity description: With the elements gathered in the box earlier the children will make a
handicraft project about their vision about nature. They will have a big cardboard, adhesiv gum,
glue, needles, coloured crayons and watercolours. They can use also mud or grass for painting,
besides the nature elements that will become crafts. They will work together at this project and
will become their common product.
PROCEEDED: The elements were now thrown up on a big cardboard and the children started to
be creative. We created the ergonomy of the place so that all children stay around the cardboard
collage. They spent most of the time painting the cardboard and the elements gathered, instead of
gluing and sticking things on collage. They were served with carrots and fruits meanwhile.
During this activity they were allowed to work with their creative side, so we would not
change anything in this activity.
THEORIES: Tanggaard, Frobel, Vygotsky, Bae, Dewey, Kolb, Piaget.
Observation (same as SENSORIAL EXPERIENCE): Sociogram: it will help us to see how
children work together to find things and help each other to feel the different things.
Narrative: it will be valuable for our research to ask questions about their experiences of
nature in general, when they are sitting and doing something creative on their own criterias.
3.7. RELAXING MOMENT
Duration: 30 minutes. Gabi and Anna observe, Trine, Christine and Martin participanting.
Participants: Students and children.
Activity description: During lunch we will make the fire in the bonefire space in VIA campus
and after lunch we will prepare hot chocolate and marshmallow kiks for the children. We will
sing together, talk about the day and find out how much they enjoyed.
PROCEEDED: While the lunches were eaten, was made hot cocoa, which was served when they
were almost finished with their food. The RELAXING MOMENT that was planned was
substituted with a catch play and climb. Because of the lack of time and the fact that some of the
boys didnt felt well, we did not reached the planned evaluation with the children. Their
educators were satisfied with the activities and the WONDERFUL DAY event.
THEORIES: Frobel, Dewey.
Observation: We will use the sociogram to see if they are engaged in singing, if they discuss, if
their body language send positive messages.
For the narrative observation we look if the children enjoy the activity, if they like spending
time together in the natural environment.
4. Signs (Tegn)
The signs that we are expecting to see are those like:

Seeing ways in which kids play together;

If and how they are helping each other;
If they are enjoying the natural environment;
the type of relations they make in completing the task;
If exists and how they make the dividing tasks;

If and how they respond to the given tasks in terms of body language (if we can

see on their faces that they understood);

If they tend to act individually or in group at the tasks;
If they try to play in their own way and not according to the instructions of the

game.
if they will recognize the natural elements from the environment around them.
To the already listed signs, we will add as added observation any sign that we

consider interesting or unusual.

5. Evaluation (Evaluering) and conclusions
The evaluation of the Wonderful Day and the evaluation of the SMTTE are based on the
signs and on the activities. The succes of the day was related to the visible signs that children
sended to us. The fact that they enjoyed the activities, they asked a lot of questions, they talked a
lot with us and also to each other showed that the activities were suitable for their ages.
The activities made children curious and created spaces for interaction. Even if it wasnt
visible in a big percentage, our value, community, was showed several times during the
activities. We say that wasnt visible in big percentage because children sometimes, tended to act
individually, even if the action required team work or interaction.
For certain, there were things, like we mentioned in the reviewed actions (PROCEeDED
with blue writing) that we could have done different or we could not have done it at all.
I learned from the WONDERFUL DAY that it is mandatory to always have a plan B and
to also be spontaneously, that things can and most of the times will not go as we planned and I
also learned that collaboration it is very important between children and also between adults.
If I would have to start over again with a WONDERFUL DAY I would put much focus
on the signs and analyse much more better the actions before writing and doing it.
As a final conclusion, I consider that an instrument like SMTTE it is very useful in
pedagogical work, for planning educational activities and also to improve professional work.
References:
1. Aagerup, Lars, Pdagogens undersgelsesmetoder. (2015). Hans Reitzels Forlag.
2. Andersen, Frode Boye, Tegn er noget vi bestemmer. (2013). Systime Profesion.
3. Bae, Berit. Children and Teachers as Partners in Communication: Focus on Spacious
and Narrow Interactional Patterns. (2012). IJEC, 44:5369. Published online: Springer
Science+Business Media B.V.
4. Brostrom, S. Care and Education: Towards a New Paradigm in Early Childhood
Education. (2006). Child Youth Care Forum, 35:391409. Published online: Springer
Science+Business Media, Inc.

5. Crahay, M. (2009). Psihologia educatiei (engl. Psychology of education). Bucharest: Trei

Publishing.
6. Ejbye-Ernst, N., Stockholm, Dorte. Pedagogical work outside the kidergarten-outdoor
play and learning(2014) .Early Childhood Education. Values and Practices in Denmark. VIA
SYSTIME. coordinated by Erik Hygum, Peter Moller Pedersen.
7. Elkjaer, Bente. (2014). Pragmatismul: O teorie a invatarii pentru viitor (engl.
Pragmatism: a theory of learning for the future). Teorii contemporane ale invatarii. (engl.
Contemporany theories of learning). Bucharest: Trei Publishing. Coordinator: Knud Illeris.
8. Jensen, J.,O. (2014). Creativity and pedagogical practice. Early Childhood Education.
Values and Practices in Denmark. VIA SYSTIME. coordinated by Erik Hygum, Peter Moller
Pedersen.
9. Hygum, E. (2014). To be or not to be-the child as a human being. Early Childhood
Education. Values and Practices in Denmark. VIA SYSTIME. coordinated by Erik Hygum,
Peter Moller Pedersen.
10. Maynard, Trisha., Watersb, Jane., Clement, Jennifer. (2013) Early Years: An
International Research Journal. Child-initiated learning, the outdoor environment and the
underachieving child Volume 33.