Engaging socially excluded young people with their local environment: lessons from the field

Sarah West & Carolyn SnellUniversity of York

Overview

In this presentation we aim to:

– Consider the literature base around environmental education and young people

– Consider key gaps in the current literature base– Introduce findings from a recent project run with socially

excluded young people – Consider the effectiveness of and lessons learnt from the

project– Consider the wider implications for the environmental

education literature base

The literature base

• There is a large literature base around environmental education and young people covering: – Approaches to environmental education – The intrinsic value of experiences with nature and the environment– The impact such experiences may have on later life including pro

environmental behaviours– That socially deprived young people have fewer and less diverse nature

experiences • But, within this literature base there are two significant gaps in

knowledge: – limited published work considering environmental learning and ‘children

being brought up at the margins of affluent societies’ (Barratt Hacking et al 2007)

– surprisingly little has been written up about the practice of environmental engagement with socially deprived young people

Key questions

Given the gaps in knowledge, this research aimed to investigate:

– How is it best to engage in environmental education activities with young people who are likely to have:

• been permanently excluded from mainstream education • poor literacy levels• low self esteem and confidence • learning difficulties • difficulties concentrating for long periods • Issues with trust

– What can this research tell us about environmental learning and ‘children being brought up at the margins of affluent societies’?

Introducing the project

• OPAL funded by Big Lottery Fund to inspire new generation of nature-lovers

• Working with “hard-to-reach” groups• Alternative Learning Programme (ALPS)

- Run by a City Council youth services team- Young people who have been excluded from formal

education- One-to-one support from key worker- Aims to build confidence and re-engage with education

Initial brief

• Met with youth services co-ordinator– ALPS young people have low self esteem, low

confidence, usually work alone with key worker, short attention spans.

– Low levels of literacy– Aged 14/15– Suggested introductory session to understand

the group

Activities overview

Activities at a local nature reserve (Sal Hobbs and SW)

- Six 1 hour sessions plus introductory session

- Indoor space, enclosed garden, plus nature area

- Sessions divided into shorter activities, with break

Evaluation

• Keen to evaluate the success of the project– Enjoyment for the young people– Their learning and attitude changes

• Methodology:– Participant observation– Photography: young people documenting work– Pre and post project interviews

Interviews

• Pre-project interview– Interviewer worked for youth services, and Social Policy

researcher– Group interview, asked them about their attitudes

towards the environment and nature

• Post-project interview– Solo interviews, so less domination by one individual– Used photographs to encourage them to talk about the

activities• Responses used to assess preferred sessions

Session 1: Getting to know each other

• Willow weaving• Finding out what

interested in– Pond dipping

suggested

• This was one of their least favourite sessions

Session 2: Nature walk

• Pre-project interviews• Walk around site

– My observations• Not enough variety in

activity• Best bit was seeing the

red beetle.

– What they said in interviews at end

• Both lad’s least favourite activity

• Girl: “Oh, is that an hour up already?”

Session 3: Minibeasts

• Indoor session (raining)• Magnifying minibeasts

– Favourite and second favourite sessions

– Session over-ran

– Key worker: “I’ve never seen them like that before!”

– Equipment used – USB magnifier plus printer

Session 4: Pond dipping

• Underwater camera• Pond dipping• Magnifying pond creatures

– Girl’s favourite session– Less popular with lads

• Weren’t bothered about underwater camera

Session 5: Reptiles

• Milk snake• Common lizards

– Lad A’s favourite session– Girl enjoyed it despite fears– Pond dipping afterwards

Session 6: Small mammal trapping

• Early start (9am) checking Longworth traps• Lad A reluctant at first to check traps, then keen

• Little participation from Lad B– comments like “Kill it, squash the bag”

– “Why did we have to come out so early?”

- “I want a job where I work for myself, so I can get up when I like”.

Session 7: Indoor session with scrapbooks

• Interviews at end– Lad B’s favourite session (as later in day)

Discussion

Given the gaps in knowledge identified earlier, this research aimed to investigate:

– How is it best to engage in environmental education activities with socially excluded young people

– What can this research tell us about environmental learning and ‘children being brought up at the margins of affluent societies’?

Discussion: What works?

• Both lad’s favourite session was magnifying insects using USB microscope

• I also felt this was the best session– Showing them an alien

world?

Discussion: What works?

• Pre and post interviews not effective with this group e.g. “What are your views about the environment”– B: Boring– I: You think it’s boring, why do you think it’s boring– B: Don’t know– I: Why- do you know why you think that, d’you think it’s…– B: No it’s just boring– I: Boring? What do you think…– F: Don’t know

• Key worker explaining lack of response: “You’re wasting your breath there Sarah…they don’t really know each other either and they don’t really know us so I think it’s all a bit new”

Discussion: What works?

• Post-project interviews carried out one-to-one: – I: Do you think it was a good time of day to do this or

would you change that?– B: Change it– I: To what?– B: About half pas eleven– I: So what- why's that? Just cos that's the time you

normally get up?– B: Get up whatever time I need to get up but half past

eleven you can stay in bed longer

Discussion: What works?

• Time of day was main criticism from interviews e.g.– I: All right, so you weren't sat there thinking, watching

your clock and thinking 'oh Wish I could go home and do something else’

– B: No– I: Did any of 'em go really quickly and you thought

where's that hour gone?– B: Yeah…the mouse thing one– I: The mouse one? So what was good about that that

made it go really quickly?– B: Cos we seen some dirty animals

Discussion: What works?

• Preparation of sessions very time consuming– Needed suite of activities to keep them occupied– Needed back up plans in case original plan not engaging

enough

• Ability to adapt the sessions– Never knew how many would turn up– e.g. Magnifying insects a success so repeated later

• Mentally challenging– Lack of enthusiasm, especially with first two sessions…

Discussion: broader reflections

• It is hard to say whether this experience will have any impact on future environmental attitudes and behaviours: – These young people at starting on a very different level to those

described in the literature – Despite the positive levels of engagement in the sessions, there was

no obvious difference in the young peoples’ views about the environment after the course – the environment was still ‘boring’

• Are events around nature engagement necessarily there to promote a broader environmental message?

• The intrinsic value of engaging in these activities – Contribution towards Alternative Learning programme– Interest and enthusiasm for some of the sessions– Social inclusion goals

Thanks

Thanks to…

• Sessions couldn’t have run without Sal Hobbs, OPAL PhD student

• Young people and their key workers who took part• Interviews by Sarah Wilson, Social Policy and Social

Work• Funding for the OPAL project from the Big Lottery Fund

under Changing Spaces programme

Questions…

….Any questions?