Advertisement

The Legacy Café—A Trial of Intergenerational and Sustainable Learning in an Early Childhood Centre in Liverpool

  • Diane BoydEmail author
Chapter
Part of the World Sustainability Series book series (WSUSE)

Abstract

Early childhood is a transformative period where attitudes and foundations for life are laid (Siraj-Blatchford et al. Education for sustainable development in the early years, 2010). The principles of education for sustainability reflect a holistic and interconnected approach, similar to the ecological context of early childhood. This interconnectedness is further highlighted with the three pillars of sustainability (economic, environmental and socio/cultural), that they are all interrelated (Brundtland, Our common future: the world commission on environment and development. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1987). The ecological context centres the child in their own contextual and cultural environment. Bronfenbrenner (The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1979) noted a key element of this environment or community was its “a dynamic entity which is constantly changing” (Keenan and Evans, An introduction to child development. Sage, London, 2010: 35) reflecting flexibility and the bi-relational aspect when the child not only interacts with their environment, but influences it too. The Legacy Intergenerational sustainable skill café is a socially cultural integrated model, bringing generations within communities together, building a more sustainable society, a “community of practice” (Lave and Wenger, Communities of practices: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998) researching through a “place of possibilities” (Dahlberg and Moss, Dialogue with Reggio Emilia. Listening, researching and learning. Routledge, London, 2006, p. 12). The elderly willingly share cultural traditions with families and children in disappearing or lost skills that are being ‘divorced’ (Langlands, Craft: an inquiry into the origins and true meaning of traditional crafts. W.W Norton and Company, New York, 2018) from our identity or cultural heritage, reflecting a “collective responsibility” (Dahlberg and Moss, Dialogue with Reggio Emilia. Listening, researching and learning. Routledge, London, 2006: 10) validating the position of the family as a socialising agent’ (Mbebeb 2009, p. 25).

References

  1. Abbott L, Nutbrown C (2007) Experiencing Reggio Emilia; implications for pre-school provision. Open University Press, MaidenheadGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander C (1979) A timeless way of building. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Plan Assoc 35(4):216–224Google Scholar
  4. Avison K, Rawson M (2016) The tasks and content of the Steiner -Waldorf curriculum. Floris Books, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  5. Ballantyne R, Connell S, Fien J (2006) Students as catalysts of environmental change: a framework for researching intergenerational influence through environmental education. Environ Edu Res 12(3–4):413–427 Google Scholar
  6. Bandura A (1977) Social learning theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliff, NJGoogle Scholar
  7. Bostrom A (2003) Lifelong learning, intergenerational learning and social capital. From theory to practice. Institute of International Education, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  8. Bourn D, Hunt F, Blum N, Lawson H (2016) Primary education for global learning and sustainability. Research report for the Cambridge Primary Review Trust. Retrieved from www.cprtrust.org.uk
  9. Brayshaw E (2017) How embroidery therapy helped first world war veterans find a common ground. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/25/how-embroidery-therapy-helped-first-world-war-veterans-find-a-common-thread. Accessed from 25th April 2017
  10. Brewer JD (2000) Ethnography. Open University Press, BuckinghamGoogle Scholar
  11. Bronfenbrenner U (1979) The ecology of human development: experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Brundtland G (1987) Our common future: the world commission on environment and development. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Boyd D (2018) Early childhood education for sustainability and the legacies of two pioneering giants. Early Years 38(2):227–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Boyd D, Hirst N, Siraj-Blatchford J (eds) (2018) Understanding sustainability in early childhood education. Case studies and approaches from across the UK. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Cambridge Primary Review (2014) Community soundings: the primary review regional witness sessions. Retrieved from http://cprtrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Comm-soundings-briefing-REVISED-2014.pdf
  16. Dahlberg G, Moss P (2006) Introduction. Our Reggio Emilia. In: Rinaldi C (ed) Dialogue with Reggio Emilia. Listening, researching and learning. Routledge, London, pp 1–23Google Scholar
  17. Davis J (2015) Young children and the environment. Early education for sustainability. Cambridge University Press, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  18. Davis J (2009) Revealing the research ‘hole’ of early childhood education for sustainability: a preliminary survey of the literature. Environ Educ Res 15(2):227–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Denscombe M (2014) The good research guide for small scale research projects. Open University Press, MaidenheadGoogle Scholar
  20. Department for Education (2017) Statutory framework for the early years foundation stage: setting the standards for learning, development and care for children from birth to five. Department for Education, RuncornGoogle Scholar
  21. Dewey J (1916) Democracy and education: an introduction to the philosophy of education. Project Gutenberg, Salt Lake City. Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/852?msg=welcome_stranger
  22. Duvall J, Zint M (2007) A review of the effectiveness of environmental education in promoting intergenerational learning. Journal Environ Educ 38(4):14–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Generation United (2007) The benefits of intergenerational programs. Retrieved from https://www.gu.org/
  24. Giles H, Coupland N (1991) Language: contexts and consequences. Brooks/Cole, Pacific GroveGoogle Scholar
  25. Graue E, Walsh D (1995) Children in context: interpreting the here and now of children’s lives. In: Hatch JA (ed) Qualitative research in early childhood settings. Praeger, Westport, Connecticut, pp 135–54Google Scholar
  26. Gray C, MacBlain S (2015) Learning theories in childhood. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Helliwell J, Layard R, Sachs J (eds) (2018) World happiness report. Retrieved from http://worldhappiness.report/ed/2018/
  28. Hunt F (2012) Global learning in primary schools in England: practices and impacts. DERC Research paper no. 9. UCL Institute of Education, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Joyce R (2012) Outdoor learning. Past and present. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Kasser T (2006) Materialism and its alternatives. In: Csikszentmihalyi M, Csikszentmihalyi I (eds) A life worth living: contributions to positive psychology. Oxford University Press, Toronto, pp 200–214Google Scholar
  31. Kenner C, Ruby M, Jessel J, Gregory E, Arju T (2007) Intergenerational learning between children and grandparents in east London. J Early Child Res 5(3):219–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Keenan T, Evans S (2010) An introduction to child development. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Knit for Peace (n.d). The health benefits of knitting. Retrieved from http://www.knitforpeace.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/The-Health-Benefits-of-Knitting-Preview.pdf
  34. Kuttner P (2015) Educating for cultural citizenship: reframing the goals of arts education. J Crit Inq 45:1Google Scholar
  35. Langlands A (2018) Craft: an inquiry into the origins and true meaning of traditional crafts. W.W Norton and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Lave J, Wenger E (1998) Communities of practices: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. Liebschner J (1993) A child’s work. Freedom and guidance in froebel’s educational theory and practice. Lutterworth Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. Lutz F (1986) Ethnography; the holistic approach to understanding schooling. In: Hammersley M (ed) Controversies in classroom research. Open University Press, Milton Keynes, pp 107–120Google Scholar
  39. MacNaughton G, Hughes P (2009) Doing action research in early childhood studies. Open University Press, MaidenheadGoogle Scholar
  40. Malagguzi L (n.d.) One hundred languages poem. Retrieved from https://reggioemilia2015.weebly.com/the-100-languages.html
  41. Mbebeb F (2009) Developing life skills in children. Priming entrepreneurial mindsets through socialisation in family occupations. Inter J Early Child 41(2):23–34Google Scholar
  42. Ministry of Education (1996). Te Whariki: early childhood education curriculum. Ministry of Education, Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  43. Moss P (2007) The ‘Otherness’ of Reggio. In: Abbott L, Nutbrown C (eds) Experiencing Reggio Emilia. Implications for pre-school provision. Open University Press, Maidenhead, pp 125–138Google Scholar
  44. Moss P (2017) Lecture to LJMU November 2017. Retrieved from http://www.ecsdn.org/FileUploads/Peter%20Moss%20Presentation%20Workforce_1465598743_5.pdf
  45. Nsamenang BA (2007) Cultures in early childhood care and education. Education for all global monitoring report. UNESCO, 2007/ED/EFA/MRT/PI/3Google Scholar
  46. Nicholls M (2004) Cultural perspectives from Aotearoa/New Zealand. J Intergenerational Relat 1(4):25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. O’Brien C (2013) Education for sustainable happiness and well-being. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  48. Ofsted (2017) Bold beginnings: the reception curriculum in a sample of good and outstanding primary schools. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/663560/28933_Ofsted_-_Early_Years_Curriculum_Report_-_Accessible.pdf
  49. Paige-Smith A, Craft A (2008) Developing reflective practice in the early years. Open University Press, MaidenheadGoogle Scholar
  50. Rinaldi C (2006) In dialogue with Reggio Emilia. Listening, researching and learning. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Robins N, Roberts S (1998) Consumption in a sustainable world accelerating international action. In: Background report for the workshop on consumption in a sustainable world. Kabelvaag, Norway, 2–4 JuneGoogle Scholar
  52. Robinson L, Vaealiki V (2015) Ethics and pedagogy at the heart of early childhood education for sustainability. In: Davis J (ed) Young children and the environment. Education for sustainability. Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, pp 103–123Google Scholar
  53. Rogoff B (1996) Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. Retrieved from http://methodenpool.uni-koeln.de/situierteslernen/Teaching%20As%20Learning.htm
  54. Rogoff B (2014) Children’s guided participation and participatory appropriation in sociocultural activity. In: Wozniak R, Fischer K (eds) Development in context. Acting and thinking in specific contexts. Psychology Press, New York, pp 121–155Google Scholar
  55. Schön D (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Temple Smith, LondonGoogle Scholar
  56. Seedsman T (2013) A mosaic of contemporary issues, insights and perspectives surrounding intergenerational practice. J Intergenerational Relat 11(4):347–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shier H (2001) Pathways to participation, openings, opportunities and obligations. A new model for enhancing children’s participation in decision making in line with the article 12.1 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Child Soc 15:107–117Google Scholar
  58. Siraj-Blatchford J, Smith KC, Pramling Samuelsson I (2010) Education for sustainable development in the early years. Available online: https://www327matters.org/Docs/ESD%20Book%20Master.pdf
  59. Smidt S (2009) Introducing Vygotsky: a guide for practitioners and students in early years education. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  60. Smidt S (2014) Introducing Freire. A guide for students, teachers and practitioners. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  61. Standing EM (1998) Maria Montessori. Her life and work. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  62. UNDES (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations Department for Economics and Social Affairs, New York. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002463/246300E.pdf
  63. UNESCO (2002) Cultural declaration on cultural diversity (Culture diversity series no.1). UNESCO, ParisGoogle Scholar
  64. United Nations (1991) United Nations principles for older persons. Resolution 46/91. OHCHR, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  65. United Nations, Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/OlderPersons.aspx
  66. Vaillant G (2002) Aging well. Little Brown, BostonGoogle Scholar
  67. Vanderven K (2004) Intergenerational theory in society. J Intergenerational Relat 2:3–4Google Scholar
  68. Vygotsky L (1978) Mind in society. the development of higher mental psychological processes. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  69. Weckström E, Jääskeläinen B, Ruokonen I, Karlsson L, Ruismäki H (2017) Steps together: children’s experiences of participation in club activities with the elderly. J Intergenerational Relat 15(3):273–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wyness L (2015) “Talking Citizenship…” exploring the contribution an intergenerational, participatory learning project can make to the promotion of active citizenship in sustainable communities. Local Environ 20(3):277–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationLiverpool John Moores UniversityLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations