Youth Design Participation To Support Ecological Literacy

Youth Design Participation to Support Ecological Literacy: Reflections on Charrettes for an
Outdoor Learning Laboratory

Author(s): Nancy D. Rottle and Julie M. Johnson
Source: Children, Youth and Environments , Vol. 17, No. 2, Pushing the Boundaries:
Critical International Perspectives on Child and Youth
Participation - Focus on the United States and Canada, and Latin America (2007), pp. 484-
502
Published by: University of Cincinnati
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.17.2.0484
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
University of Cincinnati is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Children, Youth and Environments
This content downloaded from

130.195.21.27 on Wed, 30 Jan 2019 15:13:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Children, Youth and Environments 17(2), 2007
Youth Design Participation to Support

Ecological Literacy:
Reflections on Charrettes for an
Outdoor Learning Laboratory
Nancy D. Rottle
Julie M. Johnson
Department of Landscape Architecture
University of Washington
Citation: Rottle, Nancy D. and Julie M. Johnson (2007). “Youth Design

Participation to Support Ecological Literacy: Reflections on Charrettes for an
Outdoor Learning Laboratory.” Children, Youth and Environments 17(2): 484-
502.
Abstract
Childhood experiences in nature have been found to hold myriad developmental
values, yet opportunities for such experiences have diminished greatly. If children
are to regain these values, firsthand experiences to learn from and care about and
for such natural places are essential. Such experiences, and the resulting
knowledge, caring and competence to act, serve as the foundation of what David
Orr defines as "ecological literacy." A meaningful context for such experiences and
literacy building is that of formal education, where youth may undertake hands-on
studies outdoors. These studies could occur in nearby open space, such as urban
parks, provided the parks were appropriately designed. This paper describes
youths’ participation in design charrettes for a park’s “outdoor learning laboratory,”
reflects on the process and outcomes, and suggests potentials to support ecological
literacy through both the charrette process and the designed learning environment.
Keywords: youth design participation, charrettes, ecological literacy,

environmental learning, urban parks
© 2007 Children, Youth and Environments

130.195.21.27 on Wed, 30 Jan 2019 15:13:33 UTC
Youth Design Participation to Support Ecological Literacy... 485
Introduction
Fifty years ago, Rachel Carson ruminated on the value of childhood exploration of
the natural world in her book, The Sense of Wonder. Among her reflections, she
stated: “Those who contemplate the beauty of the earth find reserves of strength
that will endure as long as life lasts….There is something infinitely healing in the
repeated refrains of nature” (1956, 88-89). These ideas have been affirmed by the
extensive research of Stephen and Rachel Kaplan on people’s responses to nature
(1989). Richard Louv has explored the importance of nature in children’s lives in
Childhood’s Future (1990) and Last Child in the Woods (2005). In this most recent
book, he recounts studies indicating that ADHD-diagnosed children who have
experiences with green spaces show increased attention. Yale professor Stephen
Kellert emphasizes the benefits of contact with nature for the cognitive, affective,
and moral development of children and youth. He concludes that contact with
nature produces the “greatest maturational benefits when it occurs in stable,
accessible, and culturally relevant social and physical environments” (2005, 88).
Yet for all the acknowledged benefits, experiences in nature are rapidly
disappearing from children’s and youths’ daily lives in the United States. Increasing
urbanization and societal changes have altered where and how children and youth
spend their time. Robert Michael Pyle is concerned that the loss of personal
intimacy with the living world amounts to an “extinction of experience” and a
subsequent lack of relationship with nature. Without such personal contact, we not
only miss nature’s innate therapeutic benefits but also awareness, appreciation and
the will to preserve local habitat. “What is the extinction of the condor to a child
who has never known a wren?” (1993, 145-47).
Like Pyle, David Orr identifies childhood as a critical time to inspire what he
describes as “ecological literacy,” stating that it “is driven by the sense of wonder,
the sheer delight in being alive in a beautiful, mysterious, bountiful world” (1992,
86). Orr describes the basis of ecological literacy as having three components: “the
knowledge necessary to comprehend interrelatedness, … an attitude of care or
stewardship,…[and] the practical competence required to act on the basis of
knowledge and feeling” (1992, 92). He underscores the importance of such literacy
for building a more sustainable future; however, the means with which to develop
ecological literacy is threatened. He asserts: “Ecological literacy is becoming more
difficult, I believe, not because there are fewer books about nature, but because
there is less opportunity for the direct experience of it….A sense of place requires
more direct contact with the natural aspects of a place, with soil, landscape, and
wildlife” (1992, 88-89). Orr notes the importance of experiences in nature being
informed by a teacher or mentor. The value of an adult mentor or teacher is
validated by Louise Chawla’s research on environmentalists’ significant childhood
experiences (1999).
Clearly, nature experiences are needed in childhood both for their therapeutic
values and as a keystone of ecological learning that builds ecological literacy.
Accessible natural places, time in these places, and people who can mentor in such
places are needed to make these experiences most beneficial. In the context of
children’s lives today, schools hold tremendous potential to provide such positive

130.195.21.27 on Wed, 30 Jan 2019 15:13:33 UTC
experiences. The school site and/or nearby parks and open space can effectively
serve as the context, especially when they are designed to optimally support place-
based learning and linked with school curricula.
Yet, urban parks designed for environmental learning are uncommon, and a paucity
of literature exists to guide their development. We set out to address this void,
using several methods of study. Recognizing a possible opportunity for authentic
youth participation—the need for which has been well documented by Roger Hart
(1997) and others—we engaged youth from a targeted user group in a participatory
design activity for a local park slated for redesign. We suspected that involvement
from youth in designing an environmental learning park would serve not only to
inform designers, but would also promote in young people the knowledge, caring
and competency that are the hallmarks of ecological literacy. This paper tells the
story of the design charrettes (workshops) we conducted with two sixth-grade
science classes, reflects on that process, outlines what we learned about designing
environmental learning parks, and suggests a role that participatory design
processes may play in developing ecological literacy.
Program Description and Research Team Goals

In Seattle, a group of approximately 250 inner-city sixth graders recently
participated in a pilot science program at the city’s Magnuson Park, using its
meadows, forest and beach as an outdoor learning laboratory. A portion of this
350-acre multipurpose park, a former naval air station, soon will be transformed
from a disturbed habitat mosaic to a 65-acre diverse wetland complex. The Seattle
School District, Seattle Parks and Recreation Department, and Earthcorps, a non-
profit group specializing in ecological restoration and education, established the
Magnuson Outdoor Learning Laboratory (MOLL) pilot program to test the park’s
viability as a venue for implementing part of the school district’s middle school
science curriculum.
Program goals had been developed through a study of the district’s educational
needs, in response to the opportunities afforded by the park as it now exists and
anticipating the construction of new habitats in its redesign. In addition, educators
felt the park offered interdisciplinary learning opportunities, and pilot program
directors consequently incorporated a service-learning component into the pilot
program. Goals of the science and service-learning curriculum were that the
students:
• learn field-science skills such as measuring, comparing, setting up a research

question, and mapping;
• become familiar with aspects of habitat restoration (e.g., native and invasive
plants, positive and negative influences on habitat, relationship of animals
and habitat, restoration practices and resulting habitat quality); and
• learn to use landscape restoration hand tools effectively.
The pilot program involved classes from two Seattle schools with high percentages
of minority and low-income students. Each class spent three field days at the park,
spread across each season of the school year. Teachers and Earthcorps interns led

130.195.21.27 on Wed, 30 Jan 2019 15:13:33 UTC
small groups in science investigations and in landscape restoration activities, with

half of the site time spent on each. Activities were located in a portion of the park
that contains diverse recovering, restored, and weedy habitats (meadow, forest,
drainage ditch, lake shoreline), parking areas that were used for program staging,
and a grassy hill that overlooks the park and adjacent lake. Students investigated
and documented life in the soil, compared wildlife counts in different habitats,
conducted simple experiments of their own design, removed invasive plants, and
planted new native trees (Figure 1). Weather was highly variable, with several days
of rain and cold. Warm-up games incorporating ecological concepts became an
appreciated component of the curriculum.
Figure 1. Students participating in the Magnuson Outdoor Learning

Laboratory (MOLL) Pilot Program counting insects in their
study plot (photo: Nancy Rottle)
After serving on the steering committee that informed the planning of MOLL, the
authors of this paper identified research opportunities related to this pilot program.
Our research had two primary goals: first, to provide insights for the redesign of
the park’s habitat components, so that these areas might optimally function as an
outdoor learning laboratory to support ecological learning; and second, to begin
articulating general design principles for environmental learning parks that support
the development of children’s and youths’ ecological learning and literacy. We
undertook a literature review of precedents and theory to inform this context. Site-
based research methods included observation of students on their field
investigation days and interviews with field leaders and teachers. Following the
three days of the on-site program, we conducted design charrettes with two classes

130.195.21.27 on Wed, 30 Jan 2019 15:13:33 UTC
of students from one of the schools. The design charrettes were intended to solicit
the students' ideas on how to make the park best support ecological learning. Since
youth were not directly involved in the design process, we believed this aspect of
the research would provide a unique and valuable set of insights for park staff and
the park designers, drawn directly from the students’ experiences at Magnuson
Park. We also anticipated that the charrettes would reinforce and extend students'
learning, and while the research was not designed to test this hypothesis, the
participatory experience yielded educational insights that we discuss below.
Youth Design Charrettes and Results

One of the participating teachers welcomed the opportunity for students to engage
in a series of design charrettes as part of their classtime activities. Design
charrettes were undertaken as three sessions: 1) posters of ideas for elements
needed in the park; 2) model designs of places for ecological learning, showing
spatial relationships among elements and selected habitats; and 3) postcard
reflections on significant elements, places, experiences, and/or learning
opportunities based on the previous charrette sessions and on the youths’ field
experiences. Charrettes were conducted in the students’ classroom with two
classes that were separated by gender: one class of 30 boys and one class of 23
girls. The first two sessions were undertaken in one-hour timeframes. During the
first two charrettes, small groups were created and a University of Washington
student and/or faculty member facilitated each group. 1 The third charrette activity
was administered by the teacher as a brief in-class exercise.
Session 1: Posters of Ideas for Elements Needed in the Park

The first design charrette session involved individual and small group brainstorming
activities to generate diverse ideas for improving the park. After asking students to
reflect on their field study experiences in the park, they were posed with the central
question: If you had $1,000,000, what would you do with it to make Magnuson
Park a better learning park? We used the “conceptual content cognitive map”—
3CM—method (Kearney and Kaplan 1997; Micic 2001), a process that asks subjects
to write their topical opinions or ideas onto sticky notes, and then arrange the notes
to form groupings as a “conceptual cognitive map.” We applied this method to draw
out the students’ design ideas, asking them to write down each of their proposals
for the park on a sticky note. Once the individuals had created their own sets of
ideas, we had them join with their small groups and arrange the notes in categories
on a large “ideas poster” (Figure 2). The transfer of all notes onto this sheet
became challenging, so with the second class, we asked students to select only
their best ideas to transfer and arrange onto the poster.
1With support from a scholarship (see Acknowledgements), Bachelor of Landscape

Architecture student Jennifer Low played a key role in this research project, including the
charrette introductions and activities.

130.195.21.27 on Wed, 30 Jan 2019 15:13:33 UTC
Figure 2. On the first day of the charrettes, students worked in small

groups to generate ideas for making a better learning park.
Students wrote the ideas on sticky notes, and then categorized
and illustrated their proposals on an informal poster (photo:
Nancy Rottle)
Then students were asked what these ideas might look like. Small photographs of
particular design elements (e.g., a footbridge) were provided as additional “idea
cards” for students to use as they desired, and they were encouraged to draw
pictures on blank cards to illustrate their mental images. Finally, each student was
asked to help prioritize which three of their group's ideas seemed most important
by putting sticker dots next to those three. Each group shared their favorite items
with the rest of the class.
The students quickly grasped the idea that environments could be created that
afforded better habitat for animals as well as for their studies; these included both
habitat restoration (e.g., “less invasive plants,” trees, fish and frog ponds, and
wetlands) and “houses” for animals. The students also gave numerous ideas for
how to make it easier and more comfortable for them to engage in outdoor
learning: benches and bathrooms topped the list, with several groups noting the
need for picnic tables, shelter, and food. More unique suggestions included an
observation tower, treehouse, bird blind, platforms, and bridges to observe wildlife;
cameras and more “quadrats” 2 for study; and “wood to build bird houses, bee hives
2
Students had used 1-meter square "quadrat" frames to define an area for their field
investigations

130.195.21.27 on Wed, 30 Jan 2019 15:13:33 UTC
and ant farms.” Several groups proposed a science lab and indoor science learning
facilities. The most frequently stated ideas fell into the categories shown on Table
1.
Table 1. Content summary of ideas for elements to include in

environmental learning parks generated in Session 1
• Animal houses
such as birdhouses, butterfly center, snake house
• Animal habitats
including pond, native plants, trees, river
• Animals
notably birds, bugs, bats, and small animals
• Plants and greenhouse
• Water and water features
• Habitat observation places

such as treehouse, platforms
• Park amenities and comforts

such as benches, bathrooms, shelter, picnic tables, food
• Features related to cleanliness

including clean water and pooper-scooper dispenser
• Recreational facilities
such as football, basketball, baseball, walking and bike trails, maze
• Ways for moving

such as dirt biking, canoes
• Classroom facilities
• Tools and supplies
• Expansion, such as more park and camping facilities
Session 2: Models of Designed Places for Ecological Learning

In the second session we re-introduced student groups to the idea posters they
created in the first charrette, and asked each group to consider the types of habitat
they would like in the park. To stimulate their thinking, we provided a handout that
listed a variety of habitat types (see Figure 3). A large cardboard base was
provided to each group, and we asked students to draw where these habitats and
the proposals from their posters might be located in their park. Students were

130.195.21.27 on Wed, 30 Jan 2019 15:13:33 UTC
given, and brought some of their own, model making materials to create their
preferred habitat types and program elements. They worked together to represent
elements from their posters that would be placed within the habitats, paths that
would connect the habitat areas, and other ideas that emerged through the creative
process (Figures 4-7).
Figure 3. Handout given to students to guide their model-making process

130.195.21.27 on Wed, 30 Jan 2019 15:13:33 UTC
Figures 4-6. The model-making activity was divided into four steps: a)
deciding upon the habitats they would include in their
learning park; b) drawing habitats and built elements on the
cardboard base c) constructing their park elements and d)
presenting their model to the class. Students also consulted
their idea posters from Session 1 to stimulate model-making
ideas (Photos: Nancy Rottle and Jennifer Low)

130.195.21.27 on Wed, 30 Jan 2019 15:13:33 UTC
Figure 7. Example of a finished charrette model completed by a small

group of sixth-graders (photo: Jennifer Low)

130.195.21.27 on Wed, 30 Jan 2019 15:13:33 UTC
The students’ ten models presented ideas for an array of habitats. All contained a
water body or wetland. The most common habitat areas that students elected to
create were cover types of forest and grass area, and topographic features of hills
and flat land. The models contained a wide range of different program elements to
support environmental learning. Consistent with the idea generation exercise in
Session 1, bathrooms and benches were most common, bridges were second, and
greenhouses and basketball courts third. The ideas broke out into categories of
park amenities, habitat observation, recreational facilities, and built indoor facilities.
Frequencies of the ideas represented on the models are shown on Table 2.
Table 2. Frequency of Ideas Represented on Models, Session 2
HABITAT
Water body or wetland

Pond 7 River* 2
Lake 3 Shoreline 2
Wetland 3 Creek* 1
Cover types and topography
Forest, Trees 6 Hill 7
Grass Field 5 Flat Land 4
New Restored Area 3 Depressions 1
Parking Lot 3 Island* 1
Blackberry Field 2
Meadow 2
Bird Habitat* 2
Plant Area* 1
Flowers* 1
* These habitat types were not included on the charrette
handout.
PROGRAM ELEMENTS
Park amenities
Bathrooms 6 Light 1
Benches 6 Water Fountains 1
Picnic Area/Tables 2 Garbage Receptacles 1
Trolley Cart 1 Janitor 1
Habitat and observation
Bridge 4 Bird Food 1
Platform/Boardwalk 2 Birdhouse 1
Tower 1 Bug Eating Space 1
Treehouse 1
Recreational facilities
Basketball Court 3 Swings/Playground 1
Dog Park 2 Place to Swim 1
Bike Trails 1 Water Park 1
Bike Rack 1 Boat Launch 1

130.195.21.27 on Wed, 30 Jan 2019 15:13:33 UTC
Indoor facilities
Green House 3 Snake House 1
Community Center/ 2 Butterfly House 1
Teen Center
Restaurant 1 Bed + Breakfast 1
Library 1 Water Fountains 1
Science Lab 1
Session 3: Postcard Reflections on Significant Ideas and Experiences for

Ecological Learning
Two weeks after we completed the second charrette, we asked the students to
undertake a brief reflective activity that was administered by their teacher. The
students wrote 8.5 x 11-inch “postcards” to the research team, answering two sets
of questions: “The most important idea from our charrettes was…” and “what we’d
study there…” was written on one side of the postcard as a prompt for words and/or
drawings. On the other side of the postcard was: “The best place for learning at
Magnuson Park was…” The students’ responses yielded insights about what they felt
was most important for their environmental learning at the park, and the benefits
of the charrette process.
The majority of students’ responses regarding the charrettes fell into three
categories:
Structures for Study

Almost half of the students wrote about structures that made studying possible or
better (such as a bird blind, bridge over a pond, butterfly house). These students
were sometimes specific about a type of organism they would study (e.g., birds,
butterflies) and sometimes very general (e.g., nature, the environment).
Greenhouses and science centers were popular ideas: five boys thought that a
greenhouse was the best idea, “to keep living insects and plants in there,” and six
students—mostly girls—liked the idea of a science center where they could “study
about the bugs and plants they have encountered at the park.”
Habitat
A third of the students, mostly boys, said that the most important idea was about
some type of habitat, and their subjects of study centered on the relationship
between animals and plants or between animals and habitat: “The important idea
was the forest because it’s a great habitat for lots of animals…we would study what
different animals live there and how they would live there,” and “My most important
idea is a frog pond and a fish pond…we would study the temperature of the two and
the frogs and the fish.”
Charrette Process
Several students—almost all girls—wrote about the charrette process (e.g.,
“mapping our ideas and putting them together”; “putting the stickies on the paper”)
and identified what they would learn through the process (e.g., “science, math, art,

130.195.21.27 on Wed, 30 Jan 2019 15:13:33 UTC
measuring”; “to use all ideas that come to you”). One student wrote that the most
important part was
working together and each of us doing our part and coming up with ponds and
other things that make a good habitat….We would study an area that we
planned to turn from a bad habitat to a good habitat to see if it could be done
and to make the park a better place.
In contrast to the previous session outcomes, only a few students mentioned

general amenities for park users in this reflective activity. These included lunch
tables and bathrooms, a dock, and basketball courts for fun and “to study a jump
shot.” One person advised, “Use the bathroom idea because Magnuson Park does
not have a lot.”
Interestingly, students’ reflections about the best place for learning at Magnuson
Park—based on their field experiences there—didn’t correlate highly with their
favorite charrette ideas. Popular “best learning places” were the blackberry bush
areas that students cleared and mulched and the planting areas where the service
learning projects occurred, yet these areas needing repair weren’t often in the
models or cited as students’ favorite charrette ideas. These results may indicate
that the design process is not conducive to suggesting “messy” or degraded
environments where active service learning can occur, yet students valued these
types of places for their learning.
Our Own Learning

At the outset, we initiated the charrettes to get the students’ perspectives and
ideas about how to support environmental learning for Magnuson Park and other
park settings. We also felt that the charrette process would reinforce their on-site
learning, and contribute to the development of the students’ ecological literacy.
Our own learning from the charrette process fell into three categories that will each
be discussed in the following sections. First, what is the best way to conduct a
design process with only a limited amount of time in the classroom, and what were
the kinds of outcomes that each component of the charrette could yield? Second,
what could the students’ responses tell us about how to design environmental
learning parks, in general and potentially applied to Magnuson Park? Third, did the
charrettes have any side benefits of extending or reinforcing the students’ learning,
or otherwise contribute to their ecological literacy? How did the charrette process
relate to the students’ overall experience of the Magnuson Outdoor Learning
Laboratory pilot program? What could they tell us about the places or types of
activities in the pilot program that made the most impression on the students?
1. The Charrette Process

The charrette process and the outcomes it yielded mimicked a typical design
process. The Idea session (Session 1), using the adapted conceptual content
cognitive map (3CM) process, generated the widest range of ideas. The 3CM
process was an effective way for students to rapidly generate program elements, to
share them, and to look for commonalities. Some ideas were fitting for an
environmental learning park, while others (such as “motor scooter racing” and a

130.195.21.27 on Wed, 30 Jan 2019 15:13:33 UTC
“food court”) went further afield. Our adapted instructions asking the second cohort
(the female group) to pick out their best ideas to add to their group’s list may
account for the fact that these lists were more related to environmental learning, or
park care, than those from the first cohort (the male group).
The Model session (Session 2) showed fewer and more practical ideas, and may
have been limited by what the students felt they could construct on their group
models. However, the models showed topographical forms, which were absent from
the idea lists, and were more explicit about habitats (which may have been a result
of defining habitats as the first model-building step). The models also began to
demonstrate spatial relationships between facilities and the environment, for
instance, a bridge over a pond, a tower and treehouse.
The Postcard reflection session (Session 3) yielded the highest percentage of

learning-focused park ideas, since this was a filtering exercise that asked about
their “most important idea” and what it would enable them to study. The
disadvantage of this exercise was that, with two weeks between the activity and the
reflection (and their lists and models absent from the classroom), the students may
have been more inclined to remember the big, figurative, and/or novel ideas, such
as the greenhouse and science center. Nonetheless, the postcards were useful for
giving insight into students’ perception of the charrette process and what they may
have gained from it.
We found that for the Idea and Model sessions, it was effective to have small
groups of four to six students with adults facilitating the process. It was also
valuable to have a very clear introduction and instructions to set behavior
expectations for the new activity. We found that breaking up the session into short
segments, typically 20 minutes maximum, held the students’ attention and
circumvented off-track activity, although we did feel that the model making session
could have gone longer than one hour. The teacher noted that showing students an
example landscape model was helpful, and that we might have showed others as
well to give the students more familiarity with the design process and products.
We also recognized the critical importance of the students’ prior experience with the
park for providing concrete memories on which to conceptualize and build, and for
developing an appreciation for the objectives of an environmental learning park.
The teacher suggested that we might have held the charrette between the second
and third visits, rather than at the end of the year, so the students could revisit
Magnuson Park and envision how their ideas could be applied to the site.
We did not address practicality or give parameters related to real construction

possibilities, and consequently students proposed ideas such as a full-blown science
center that are not feasible within the budget parameters for the redesign of
Magnuson Park. In retrospect, and given more time, we might have added another
filter and asked the students to prioritize program elements within a more
restricted budget so that their ideas had greater potential of integration with the
park’s final design.

130.195.21.27 on Wed, 30 Jan 2019 15:13:33 UTC
2. Designing Environmental Learning Parks

The charrette sequence was intended to evoke the students’ perceptions on how
the environment could better support their science learning, and it helped us to
understand several perspectives:
• These students, as anyone would, brought their expectations of what

happens at parks and school to their outdoor learning experience. They
wanted to have typical park conveniences (especially real bathrooms and
food), recreational facilities, cleanliness, and amenities such as benches and
picnic tables; several students suggested typical classroom facilities such as
a science laboratory and science center. These responses underscore the
need for previous experience with the outdoors, and with outdoor learning, to
inform this new prototype. It also told us that basic amenities such as
regular bathrooms and benches were important to a positive learning
experience and may help students to feel more comfortable in
“environmental learning park” areas. Similarly, the popularity of science
centers and greenhouses might indicate the need for a warm place to study
on cold, rainy days.
• Most models contained some kind of space conducive to play—a grassy field,
kite hill, dog park, and/or basketball court. We might interpret this to say
that play is still an important part of a field trip, even for middle schoolers,
and that even a small space for warming up and taking a break from
immersion in habitat and science study would make the experience more
positively memorable.
• Changes in topography, views and structures that alter perspective may add
contrast, drama and adventure, thereby yielding positive and memorable
experiences for youth.
• Spaces with cohesion and identity help to develop conceptual clarity.

Students were able to designate distinct areas as certain types of habitat,
and then relate animal life to those habitats in the models and reflective
postcards. At this stage, most students require tangible examples; while
they are able to apply relational concepts (such as an animal to its habitat),
they may have more difficulty with concepts such as "flows" between spaces
with subtle differences. This idea correlates highly with reports from the
outdoor leaders that more distinct boundaries are needed for teaching as well
as for behavior management.
• While design charrettes can be informative, they provide only part of the
lessons that students can offer park designers. As noted above, when we
asked the students to describe the best place for learning at Magnuson Park,
one of the most common responses was “the blackberry bushes,” which is
where most of the active restoration activities took place. Students linked
their science learning to the restoration activity; this active endeavor was
memorable, repeated, and may have helped students to feel they were
making a difference. Recognizing the inherent learning in the habitat

130.195.21.27 on Wed, 30 Jan 2019 15:13:33 UTC
restoration process, design of certain areas might take a long-term process-

approach, with proactive plans to engage students in restoration as part of
their science as well as service curriculum.
3. Charrette Benefits to the Students: Fostering Ecoliteracy

While our study was not designed to test the students’ learning, there is some
evidence that the charrette process may have combined with their field experiences
to contribute to their developing ecoliteracy. Orr defines the foundation of
ecological literacy as having three components: caring about the environment,
enough knowledge to comprehend interrelatedness within the environment, and
practical competence to enable a person to act on the basis of this feeling and
knowledge (1992, 92). Therefore, we use these criteria of caring, knowing and
competence to examine whether the charrettes may have helped to foster
ecoliteracy.
Caring
Numerous postcard responses regarding what students felt was important in their
charrette ideas referred to helping animals or their habitat, demonstrating the
empathy required for ecoliteracy (Orr 1992). In addition, the students seemed to
enjoy the charrette experience, and responses on the postcards were generally
positive. One response to the “most important idea” question was “that it was nice
that we all have a nice time doing it with you,” and on another “It was fun and
learning-ful.” Having such positive experiences to support outdoor learning may
enhance caring about the environment.
Knowing
The numerous references to habitat in the reflective postcards suggest that the
model-building may have reinforced the cognitive lessons from the site visits. The
conceptual connection between habitat and animals is an example of
interrelatedness and an essential foundation in environmental education. Promoting
this type of understanding through the act of collaborative design may therefore
contribute to building of youths' knowledge.
Competence
The experience may have helped the students to feel more competent in creating or
restoring habitat, evidenced by end-of-the-year evaluations that the MOLL program
administered to the two participating schools. On a question that asked the
students to describe the steps needed to turn a parking lot into a small natural
area, the students from the school that participated in the charrettes did
significantly better than those with only the field experience, and they improved
substantially from the pre-test. Whereas in the pretest less than 25 percent of the
students even tried to answer this question, 90 percent made an attempt for the
post-test. A third described this process sufficiently for evaluators to rate the
degree of process description as “somewhat” or “well.” For example, one student
wrote: “First, get a plan. Next hire the people. Then get started. Block off the
people from getting into the parking lot. Take off the part of the lot you are getting
rid of. Put soil down. Grow Plants. Put benches or chair and you are set.” In
contrast, only 7 percent from the “control” school that participated only in the field

130.195.21.27 on Wed, 30 Jan 2019 15:13:33 UTC
experience could describe the process, and only 60 percent of this group made an
effort to do so. Engaging students in the design of their environment may help to
awaken students' awareness of and confidence in their own abilities. This notion is
supported by some of the responses on the reflective postcards, such as “The most
important idea I learn [sic] is that I know the model I made will be something I like
at the park.”
Reflections and Questions

Charrettes may support ecological literacy through both the outcomes that inform a
designed place and the learning that occurs in the participatory process. We
engaged young people in the design charrette process with the belief that design
should be informed by asking them about their needs, desires and ideas. Our
philosophy was confirmed through this participatory process; youths’ answers may
surprise adults as well as validate adult perceptions. Engaging youth in design
participation may reveal pragmatic, useful elements that are missing in a built
environment and inspire fresh, creative ideas.
Unfortunately, involving students is not typically part of a consultant’s scope of

work for designing parks or other places for youth; without a sanctioned
involvement in the design process, it is unlikely that youths’ ideas will be sought or
incorporated. We initiated and were able to conduct these charrettes as scholars
and only with the aid of an academic scholarship and student volunteers. While we
have given the results to the park designers, it remains to be seen whether the
students’ ideas will be incorporated into the design for Magnuson Park. The complex
process of creating a wetland park involves high-level technical application, a
convoluted regulatory process and budgetary restrictions, often resulting in even
the professional designers’ ideas being diluted. However, if public clients require
that youth be meaningfully involved in the design process, their ideas can inform
designers and have a better chance of being brought to reality.
Additionally, involvement in the process of participatory design may have

immediate benefits to students, prior to or without the end result of a built place.
In particular, on-site learning and involvement in design charrettes may reinforce
each other, coalescing to create powerful developmental experiences. Such
reciprocal experiences may thereby further the knowledge, caring and
competencies required to cultivate ecologically literate citizens. Moreover, such
involvement affords opportunities for mutual learning, teaching youth as well as
designers.
To make youth participation in design of environmental learning places more

widespread and effective, the potential benefits for both design and learning need
to be documented. Studies are needed to understand how youths’ engagement in
design processes may enhance cognition, affect or skill, and methods for involving
youth in design processes need to be further evaluated. While we found the
charrette process to be an effective method to draw out youths’ ideas, it would be
valuable to explore more robust and extended youth participation processes to both
influence projects and enrich students’ ecological literacy. What processes best
promote learning for both designers and students? Does engagement in design-

130.195.21.27 on Wed, 30 Jan 2019 15:13:33 UTC
based processes further higher-order learning, enhance retention, positively

influence attitudes toward the environment, or promote a sense of empowerment?
With young people’s voices at the table, more opportunities for useful, safe,
comfortable and inspiring experiences with nature may occur, affording this
population the connection with nature that scholars have identified as important to
their cognitive, affective, and moral development. And, if some of the sixth-graders’
insights are incorporated at Magnuson Park, they may get to experience the built
outcomes of their own insights.
Acknowledgements
The research team included University of Washington Landscape Architecture faculty Nancy
Rottle and Julie Johnson, and Landscape Architecture students Jennifer Low, Clayton
Beaudoin, and Garrett Devier. A group of students from Landscape Architecture and from
the Community, Environment and Planning Program generously helped facilitate small
groups for the youth design charrettes. We are particularly grateful for the support of the
Mary Gates Research Training Grant that Jennifer Low received and enabled her to play a
key role in the research.
Nancy Rottle is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Landscape

Architecture at the University of Washington, a former elementary school teacher
and a licensed landscape architect with 15 years of professional experience. Her
scholarship focuses on planning and design for landscapes that provide connections
to and educational opportunities within natural and cultural environments, and the
pedagogy of community design engagement.
Julie M. Johnson is an Associate Professor in the Department of Landscape

Architecture at the University of Washington. She is a licensed landscape architect
and certified planner whose research and teaching has focused on civic landscape
design and participatory processes, notably in the context of children’s outdoor
learning environments. She has authored an ASLA LATIS monograph on design of
school landscapes for children’s learning.
References
Carson, Rachel (1956). The Sense of Wonder. New York: Harper & Row.
Chawla, Louise (1999). “Life Paths into Effective Environmental Action.” The
Journal of Environmental Education 31(1): 15-26.
Hart, Roger A. (1997). Children’s Participation: The Theory and Practice of

Involving Young Citizens in Community Development and Environmental Care. New
York: UNICEF.

130.195.21.27 on Wed, 30 Jan 2019 15:13:33 UTC
Kaplan, Rachel and Stephen Kaplan (1989). The Experience of Nature: A

Psychological Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kearney, Anne R. and Stephen Kaplan (1997). “Toward a Methodology for the
Measurement of Knowledge Structures of Ordinary People: The Conceptual Content
Cognitive Map (3CM).” Environment and Behavior 29(5): 579-617.
Kellert, Stephen (2005). Building for Life: Designing and Understanding the
Human-Nature Connection. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Louv, Richard (1990). Childhood’s Future. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
----- (2005). The Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit
Disorder. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill.
Micic, Shawna Marie (2001). Testing New Methods for Improving the
Effectiveness of Collaborative and Participatory Design and Planning Processes:
Conceptual Content Cognitive Map (3CM). Master of Landscape Architecture Thesis,
University of Washington.
Orr, David W. (1992). Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transition to a

Postmodern World. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Pyle, Robert Michael (1993). The Thunder Tree: Lessons from an Urban
Wildland. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

130.195.21.27 on Wed, 30 Jan 2019 15:13:33 UTC

Youth Design Participation To Support Ecological Literacy

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Youth Design Participation To Support Ecological Literacy

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Youth Design Participation to Support Ecological Literacy: Reflections on Charrettes for an

Outdoor Learning Laboratory

This content downloaded from