Periodic Reporting for period 1 - Social Inclusion (Creating Inclusive Learning Environments, Socially and Physically for all Children: An Affordance-Based Approach)
Reporting period: 2022-10-01 to 2024-09-30
Summary of the context and overall objectives of the project
Title: Creating Inclusive Learning Environments, Socially and Physically for All Children: An Affordance-Based Approach
1. Introduction:
“The richest and most elaborate affordances of the environment are provided by other people.”
(Gibson, 1979/1986, p. 135)
Many children face social exclusion daily, based on (dis)abilities, race, ethnicity, and LGBTI status, amongst others, which increases their risk of mental health problems and diminishes academic success. The way the physical environment of their school is shaped plays a role in that. Traditionally, schools have focussed on the academic subjects they teach. Yet, many children and adolescents go to school not only to learn math and grammar but also to meet friends, play, socialise, share, and discuss important matters. Therefore, in addition to academic learning, schools are also where children of all ages develop other skills crucial for healthy, successful development into adulthood, physically, mentally and socially. An urgent task of European society is to create an inclusive social environment for all children, both at school and in other urban settings where children play or spend leisure time. The key to establishing such an inclusive setting is first-hand knowledge of the outsider perspective, which problems outsiders face on a daily basis. In other words, outsider children hold crucial information on what should be addressed to create a more inclusive environment. Equally important is a holistic framework that involves all stakeholders, including those responsible for the built environment (the physical context of social interaction): architectural and urban designers, policymakers, town planners, as well as school staff (teachers, mentors, deans) and classmates.
The public area in learning environments is where all social relations are agglomerated. Children meet and play in their unstructured free time e.g. school breaks (Aminpour, Bishop, & Corkery, 2020; Aminpour & Bishop, 2021). Through informal, often physical activities, children develop social and emotion-regulation skills (Veiga, de Leng, Cachuco, Ketelaar, Kok, Knobbe, Net, & Rieffe, 2017). Unfortunately, not all children have access to informal group encounters. For various reasons, many children and adolescents miss out on these vital learning opportunities on a day-to-day basis, e.g. children with barriers to communication, such as hearing loss, autism, or language disorders. These children may either spend their free time alone, outside the group process or not come to school at all. Yet to date, a few schools offer such programmes, including during time spent outside the classroom, where much social and emotional learning takes place.
Quality of social inclusiveness derives from the variety of social behaviours within communities. Ecological psychology has brought the attention of designers to both the environmental and the psychological aspects of human behaviour. In particular, affordances - the opportunities for action provided by the environment - are a central notion in ecological psychology, addressing the user’s behaviour in the environment (Gibson, 1979/1986). Affordances, thus defined, are the functionally significant properties of the physical and social environment, which are established through individual-environment relationships (Heft, 1988). Affordances promote new design approaches in which user comfort and safety are a primary goal, transparently linked to both the design of the physical environment and user behaviours. However, in architecture and urban design, it is not yet clear how this concept can be applied to the built environment design and life cycle. The complementary concept of action capability, which refers to an agent’s abilities and competencies, is essential in using affordances in the built environment (Withagen, De Poel, Araujo, & Pepping, 2012). It highlights the connection between properties of the environment and agents’ ability to use those in meaningful ways. A big question, therefore, is which action capabilities relate to specific affordances of the built environment.
We still have an incomplete picture of how children’s and adults' action capabilities differ from each other and which types of action capabilities should be considered. There are essential differences in visual acuity, mobility, sensory awareness, and cognition. We will clearly identify these differences to provide a solid analysis and better synthesise this study. The analysis and evaluation of built environments (school buildings, playgrounds) are based on their affordances and child’s action capabilities: a swimming pool generally affords swimming, but not to a child with chlorine allergy. Outsider children have different action capabilities: a deaf child with a Cochlear Implant (CI) cannot use the CI in the swimming pool and cannot hear what others say, which may impede socialising. Also, they may have other action capabilities that healthy children may not have, and of course, they share many action capabilities and hence affordances.
Although affordances are recognised in the fields of design and architecture, there is a need to develop its practical usefulness in the different parts of the architectural design process, but we lack both concrete methods to understand users’ reciprocity to the built environment and a clear framework of the roles of affordances representation in the school design process (Mohammadi, Pepping, Saghafi, & Nadimi, 2017). As it stands, it can be challenging to see the benefit of affordance-based methods, and more work needs to be done. Otherwise, we are in danger of repeating solutions that fit other societies with different needs and structures. Making the physical design of the environment ergonomically comfortable, safe, and suitable for inclusive use and constructive social inclusion is paramount. Therefore, we have to know what affordances can do for inclusiveness in architectural design in general and then move to what is already happening in the cases and utilise the output to advance architectural design methodology to describe social issues in a built environment. We will identify children’s action capabilities and relate them to the affordances of environments, concerning three main dimensions: the physical (the design of schools), the cultural (what is customary or permissible), and the social (interaction with other users). Based on the notion of affordances, we predict that creating an inclusive learning environment involves critical nudges at key places where children play and socialise. Such nudges necessitate joint action by three relevant parties: school staff (or similar agencies for urban space and facilities) for the cultural dimension; classmates/peers for the social dimension; and designers and managers of the built environment for the physical dimension (Koutamanis, 2006); Tweed, 2001).
This project aimes to achieve these specific objectives:
1) To develop empirically-based knowledge on children’s social behaviour in the open spaces of schools.
2) To develop an affordance-based intervention model for describing and designing social inclusiveness in learning environments.
1. Introduction:
“The richest and most elaborate affordances of the environment are provided by other people.”
(Gibson, 1979/1986, p. 135)
Many children face social exclusion daily, based on (dis)abilities, race, ethnicity, and LGBTI status, amongst others, which increases their risk of mental health problems and diminishes academic success. The way the physical environment of their school is shaped plays a role in that. Traditionally, schools have focussed on the academic subjects they teach. Yet, many children and adolescents go to school not only to learn math and grammar but also to meet friends, play, socialise, share, and discuss important matters. Therefore, in addition to academic learning, schools are also where children of all ages develop other skills crucial for healthy, successful development into adulthood, physically, mentally and socially. An urgent task of European society is to create an inclusive social environment for all children, both at school and in other urban settings where children play or spend leisure time. The key to establishing such an inclusive setting is first-hand knowledge of the outsider perspective, which problems outsiders face on a daily basis. In other words, outsider children hold crucial information on what should be addressed to create a more inclusive environment. Equally important is a holistic framework that involves all stakeholders, including those responsible for the built environment (the physical context of social interaction): architectural and urban designers, policymakers, town planners, as well as school staff (teachers, mentors, deans) and classmates.
The public area in learning environments is where all social relations are agglomerated. Children meet and play in their unstructured free time e.g. school breaks (Aminpour, Bishop, & Corkery, 2020; Aminpour & Bishop, 2021). Through informal, often physical activities, children develop social and emotion-regulation skills (Veiga, de Leng, Cachuco, Ketelaar, Kok, Knobbe, Net, & Rieffe, 2017). Unfortunately, not all children have access to informal group encounters. For various reasons, many children and adolescents miss out on these vital learning opportunities on a day-to-day basis, e.g. children with barriers to communication, such as hearing loss, autism, or language disorders. These children may either spend their free time alone, outside the group process or not come to school at all. Yet to date, a few schools offer such programmes, including during time spent outside the classroom, where much social and emotional learning takes place.
Quality of social inclusiveness derives from the variety of social behaviours within communities. Ecological psychology has brought the attention of designers to both the environmental and the psychological aspects of human behaviour. In particular, affordances - the opportunities for action provided by the environment - are a central notion in ecological psychology, addressing the user’s behaviour in the environment (Gibson, 1979/1986). Affordances, thus defined, are the functionally significant properties of the physical and social environment, which are established through individual-environment relationships (Heft, 1988). Affordances promote new design approaches in which user comfort and safety are a primary goal, transparently linked to both the design of the physical environment and user behaviours. However, in architecture and urban design, it is not yet clear how this concept can be applied to the built environment design and life cycle. The complementary concept of action capability, which refers to an agent’s abilities and competencies, is essential in using affordances in the built environment (Withagen, De Poel, Araujo, & Pepping, 2012). It highlights the connection between properties of the environment and agents’ ability to use those in meaningful ways. A big question, therefore, is which action capabilities relate to specific affordances of the built environment.
We still have an incomplete picture of how children’s and adults' action capabilities differ from each other and which types of action capabilities should be considered. There are essential differences in visual acuity, mobility, sensory awareness, and cognition. We will clearly identify these differences to provide a solid analysis and better synthesise this study. The analysis and evaluation of built environments (school buildings, playgrounds) are based on their affordances and child’s action capabilities: a swimming pool generally affords swimming, but not to a child with chlorine allergy. Outsider children have different action capabilities: a deaf child with a Cochlear Implant (CI) cannot use the CI in the swimming pool and cannot hear what others say, which may impede socialising. Also, they may have other action capabilities that healthy children may not have, and of course, they share many action capabilities and hence affordances.
Although affordances are recognised in the fields of design and architecture, there is a need to develop its practical usefulness in the different parts of the architectural design process, but we lack both concrete methods to understand users’ reciprocity to the built environment and a clear framework of the roles of affordances representation in the school design process (Mohammadi, Pepping, Saghafi, & Nadimi, 2017). As it stands, it can be challenging to see the benefit of affordance-based methods, and more work needs to be done. Otherwise, we are in danger of repeating solutions that fit other societies with different needs and structures. Making the physical design of the environment ergonomically comfortable, safe, and suitable for inclusive use and constructive social inclusion is paramount. Therefore, we have to know what affordances can do for inclusiveness in architectural design in general and then move to what is already happening in the cases and utilise the output to advance architectural design methodology to describe social issues in a built environment. We will identify children’s action capabilities and relate them to the affordances of environments, concerning three main dimensions: the physical (the design of schools), the cultural (what is customary or permissible), and the social (interaction with other users). Based on the notion of affordances, we predict that creating an inclusive learning environment involves critical nudges at key places where children play and socialise. Such nudges necessitate joint action by three relevant parties: school staff (or similar agencies for urban space and facilities) for the cultural dimension; classmates/peers for the social dimension; and designers and managers of the built environment for the physical dimension (Koutamanis, 2006); Tweed, 2001).
This project aimes to achieve these specific objectives:
1) To develop empirically-based knowledge on children’s social behaviour in the open spaces of schools.
2) To develop an affordance-based intervention model for describing and designing social inclusiveness in learning environments.
Work performed from the beginning of the project to the end of the period covered by the report and main results achieved so far
This study is grounded in a detailed micro-observational approach, using qualitative data to shed light on the intricate dynamics of children's interactions and movements within outdoor school environments. By employing advanced methods in environmental psychology, such as behaviour mapping and tracking used by previous researchers in this field (e.g. Cosco et al., 2010; Gifford, 2016; Zamani & Moore, 2013), we gain a comprehensive understanding of individual behaviours social interactions, and spatial usage patterns. Our methodology involves analyzing recorded videos of social interactions among children and teachers in two school outdoor spaces in the Netherlands. For further analyses, the observations were translated into textual descriptions and behavioural maps. These methods allowed us to create detailed maps of social interactions, using graphical representations such as dots for individuals and lines for movement paths. This step was crucial for visualizing the spatial dynamics of social affordances and understanding how physical and social environments shape children's behaviour.
2.1 Participants:
The study cohort comprised 150 children aged between 5 and 13 years, drawn from 21 classes across two distinct schools, identified as schools A and B. These schools were selected based on their unique geographical settings - one in an urban residential area and the other adjacent to rural green spaces - offering a diverse range of physical and social environments for analysis. Data collection spanned two weeks for each school, capturing the breadth of children’s activities during recess periods. The duration of each measurement varied, lasting between 15 to 50 minutes, with the specific duration being influenced by the age group, as younger children typically had longer breaks compared to their older counterparts. School A is situated within an urban residential area, with streets bordering the school on three sides, while the fourth side of the school property is adjacent to the backyards of single-family homes. The school area was demarcated from its neighboring properties by solid boundaries, such as fences or walls. School B is situated in a rural area, with the advantage of being close to green spaces. It occupies a portion of a larger complex. The schoolyard was delimited by less distinct boundaries on nearly all sides. As per the arrangements made during the preliminary visit, it was the standard practice for all children to exit the classroom during breaks, with the exception being made only in cases of severe weather, illness, or significant issues that would make leaving the classroom unwise.
2.2 Data collection:
Before data collection, the researchers conducted reconnaissance visits to each school to familiarise themselves with the physical and social environment. These visits included informal interviews with the school director, teachers, and caretaker, allowing the researchers to gain insights into school customs, break-time activities, and the organization of the schoolyard. This initial exploration provided valuable information on the appropriate locations for positioning video observers, as well as understanding the general rules and usage patterns of the schoolyard during breaks. This preliminary phase was crucial for refining the data collection strategy and ensuring that the observations would capture the relevant social and physical affordances within the school environment. Data collection was anchored in a micro-observational approach, focusing on unobtrusive and objective measurements of children’s behaviour. This approach was chosen to ensure that the presence of observers did not disrupt the children’s natural behaviour. Observations were primarily conducted through recorded videos, capturing the full scope of social interactions and movements in the playgrounds. These videos provided a rich dataset for analyzing the dynamics of social interactions without the children being aware of the recording, thereby preserving the authenticity of their behaviour.
2.3 Data analysis:
The data analysis process was conducted in a systematic, multi-stage approach to ensure a comprehensive understanding of children's social interactions and activities, and the identification of social affordances within the school outdoor environment:
2.3.1 Identification of key areas of social interaction:
We began with initial observation and mapping to identify key areas within the playground where social interactions were most frequent. These areas, or hotspots, were pinpointed through a combination of initial observations and quantitative analysis of behaviour mapping data. This mapping helped us to focus our attention on spaces that were most likely to yield significant insights into social dynamics.
2.3.2 Focused video analysis:
Once the hotspots were identified, we conducted a detailed video analysis focused on these areas. The recorded footage was reviewed multiple times to capture the complexity and nuances of social interactions among children. This iterative viewing process allowed for the careful observation of behaviours, ensuring that no significant interaction was overlooked.
2.3.3 Coding and categorization:
During the video analysis, children's behaviours were coded according to the three predefined categories of social affordances as outlined in our theoretical framework: - Affordances for Another Person: These involve recognizing what actions others can perform, such as a child asking a peer to push them on a swing. - Affordances for Joint Action: These occur when children collaborate to achieve a shared goal, such as two children cooperating to build a sandcastle. - Affordances of Another Person: This category highlights how one child’s actions can invite or enable another's actions, such as a child’s invitation to join a game of tag.
2.3.4 Understanding interaction dynamics:
Each behavioural episode was analyzed to understand how the physical and social environment influenced the perception-action coupling process. This stage involved examining how children’s actions were both shaped by and responded to the presence and actions of others, revealing the interdependent nature of social affordances in playground settings.
2.3.5 Refinement and validation:
The analysis was iterative, involving repeated viewing and coding of the videos to ensure accuracy and a thorough understanding of the dynamics of interactions and activities. This refinement process allowed us to validate our observations and ensure that the categorization of affordances was both robust and reflective of the actual behaviours observed.
2.4 Pilot data analysis
The pilot data analysis revealed the emergence of a new category of social affordances, which we have termed ‘Affordances of learning from others.’ Initially, as we applied the predefined categories - affordances for another person, affordances for joint action, and affordances of another person - we noticed instances where children learned new actions by observing their peers or teachers. These observations did not fit neatly into the existing categories but highlighted a distinct process where action possibilities became apparent through social observation. We defined this new category as the opportunities for action that are discovered by watching others interact with the environment. Iterative analysis confirmed its significance, leading us to integrate ‘Affordances of learning from others’ into our theoretical framework, enriching our understanding of social interactions and learning in playground settings.
During the video analysis, children's behaviours were coded according to the three predefined categories of social affordances as outlined in our theoretical framework: - Affordances for Another Person: These involve recognizing what actions others can perform, such as a child asking a peer to push them on a swing. - Affordances for Joint Action: These occur when children collaborate to achieve a shared goal, such as two children cooperating to build a sandcastle. - Affordances of Another Person: This category highlights how one child’s actions can invite or enable another's actions, such as a child’s invitation to join a game of tag.
2.3.4 Understanding interaction dynamics:
Each behavioural episode was analyzed to understand how the physical and social environment influenced the perception-action coupling process. This stage involved examining how children’s actions were both shaped by and responded to the presence and actions of others, revealing the interdependent nature of social affordances in playground settings.
2.3.5 Refinement and validation:
The analysis was iterative, involving repeated viewing and coding of the videos to ensure accuracy and a thorough understanding of the dynamics of interactions and activities. This refinement process allowed us to validate our observations and ensure that the categorization of affordances was both robust and reflective of the actual behaviours observed.
2.4 Pilot data analysis:
The pilot data analysis revealed the emergence of a new category of social affordances, which we have termed ‘Affordances of learning from others.’ Initially, as we applied the predefined categories - affordances for another person, affordances for joint action, and affordances of another person - we noticed instances where children learned new actions by observing their peers or teachers. These observations did not fit neatly into the existing categories but highlighted a distinct process where action possibilities became apparent through social observation. We defined this new category as the opportunities for action that are discovered by watching others interact with the environment. Iterative analysis confirmed its significance, leading us to integrate ‘Affordances of learning from others’ into our theoretical framework, enriching our understanding of social interactions and learning in playground settings.
2.1 Participants:
The study cohort comprised 150 children aged between 5 and 13 years, drawn from 21 classes across two distinct schools, identified as schools A and B. These schools were selected based on their unique geographical settings - one in an urban residential area and the other adjacent to rural green spaces - offering a diverse range of physical and social environments for analysis. Data collection spanned two weeks for each school, capturing the breadth of children’s activities during recess periods. The duration of each measurement varied, lasting between 15 to 50 minutes, with the specific duration being influenced by the age group, as younger children typically had longer breaks compared to their older counterparts. School A is situated within an urban residential area, with streets bordering the school on three sides, while the fourth side of the school property is adjacent to the backyards of single-family homes. The school area was demarcated from its neighboring properties by solid boundaries, such as fences or walls. School B is situated in a rural area, with the advantage of being close to green spaces. It occupies a portion of a larger complex. The schoolyard was delimited by less distinct boundaries on nearly all sides. As per the arrangements made during the preliminary visit, it was the standard practice for all children to exit the classroom during breaks, with the exception being made only in cases of severe weather, illness, or significant issues that would make leaving the classroom unwise.
2.2 Data collection:
Before data collection, the researchers conducted reconnaissance visits to each school to familiarise themselves with the physical and social environment. These visits included informal interviews with the school director, teachers, and caretaker, allowing the researchers to gain insights into school customs, break-time activities, and the organization of the schoolyard. This initial exploration provided valuable information on the appropriate locations for positioning video observers, as well as understanding the general rules and usage patterns of the schoolyard during breaks. This preliminary phase was crucial for refining the data collection strategy and ensuring that the observations would capture the relevant social and physical affordances within the school environment. Data collection was anchored in a micro-observational approach, focusing on unobtrusive and objective measurements of children’s behaviour. This approach was chosen to ensure that the presence of observers did not disrupt the children’s natural behaviour. Observations were primarily conducted through recorded videos, capturing the full scope of social interactions and movements in the playgrounds. These videos provided a rich dataset for analyzing the dynamics of social interactions without the children being aware of the recording, thereby preserving the authenticity of their behaviour.
2.3 Data analysis:
The data analysis process was conducted in a systematic, multi-stage approach to ensure a comprehensive understanding of children's social interactions and activities, and the identification of social affordances within the school outdoor environment:
2.3.1 Identification of key areas of social interaction:
We began with initial observation and mapping to identify key areas within the playground where social interactions were most frequent. These areas, or hotspots, were pinpointed through a combination of initial observations and quantitative analysis of behaviour mapping data. This mapping helped us to focus our attention on spaces that were most likely to yield significant insights into social dynamics.
2.3.2 Focused video analysis:
Once the hotspots were identified, we conducted a detailed video analysis focused on these areas. The recorded footage was reviewed multiple times to capture the complexity and nuances of social interactions among children. This iterative viewing process allowed for the careful observation of behaviours, ensuring that no significant interaction was overlooked.
2.3.3 Coding and categorization:
During the video analysis, children's behaviours were coded according to the three predefined categories of social affordances as outlined in our theoretical framework: - Affordances for Another Person: These involve recognizing what actions others can perform, such as a child asking a peer to push them on a swing. - Affordances for Joint Action: These occur when children collaborate to achieve a shared goal, such as two children cooperating to build a sandcastle. - Affordances of Another Person: This category highlights how one child’s actions can invite or enable another's actions, such as a child’s invitation to join a game of tag.
2.3.4 Understanding interaction dynamics:
Each behavioural episode was analyzed to understand how the physical and social environment influenced the perception-action coupling process. This stage involved examining how children’s actions were both shaped by and responded to the presence and actions of others, revealing the interdependent nature of social affordances in playground settings.
2.3.5 Refinement and validation:
The analysis was iterative, involving repeated viewing and coding of the videos to ensure accuracy and a thorough understanding of the dynamics of interactions and activities. This refinement process allowed us to validate our observations and ensure that the categorization of affordances was both robust and reflective of the actual behaviours observed.
2.4 Pilot data analysis
The pilot data analysis revealed the emergence of a new category of social affordances, which we have termed ‘Affordances of learning from others.’ Initially, as we applied the predefined categories - affordances for another person, affordances for joint action, and affordances of another person - we noticed instances where children learned new actions by observing their peers or teachers. These observations did not fit neatly into the existing categories but highlighted a distinct process where action possibilities became apparent through social observation. We defined this new category as the opportunities for action that are discovered by watching others interact with the environment. Iterative analysis confirmed its significance, leading us to integrate ‘Affordances of learning from others’ into our theoretical framework, enriching our understanding of social interactions and learning in playground settings.
During the video analysis, children's behaviours were coded according to the three predefined categories of social affordances as outlined in our theoretical framework: - Affordances for Another Person: These involve recognizing what actions others can perform, such as a child asking a peer to push them on a swing. - Affordances for Joint Action: These occur when children collaborate to achieve a shared goal, such as two children cooperating to build a sandcastle. - Affordances of Another Person: This category highlights how one child’s actions can invite or enable another's actions, such as a child’s invitation to join a game of tag.
2.3.4 Understanding interaction dynamics:
Each behavioural episode was analyzed to understand how the physical and social environment influenced the perception-action coupling process. This stage involved examining how children’s actions were both shaped by and responded to the presence and actions of others, revealing the interdependent nature of social affordances in playground settings.
2.3.5 Refinement and validation:
The analysis was iterative, involving repeated viewing and coding of the videos to ensure accuracy and a thorough understanding of the dynamics of interactions and activities. This refinement process allowed us to validate our observations and ensure that the categorization of affordances was both robust and reflective of the actual behaviours observed.
2.4 Pilot data analysis:
The pilot data analysis revealed the emergence of a new category of social affordances, which we have termed ‘Affordances of learning from others.’ Initially, as we applied the predefined categories - affordances for another person, affordances for joint action, and affordances of another person - we noticed instances where children learned new actions by observing their peers or teachers. These observations did not fit neatly into the existing categories but highlighted a distinct process where action possibilities became apparent through social observation. We defined this new category as the opportunities for action that are discovered by watching others interact with the environment. Iterative analysis confirmed its significance, leading us to integrate ‘Affordances of learning from others’ into our theoretical framework, enriching our understanding of social interactions and learning in playground settings.
Progress beyond the state of the art and expected potential impact (including the socio-economic impact and the wider societal implications of the project so far)
The research findings provide a framework to better understand the different categories of social affordances in school outdoor environments and how they shape children’s social behaviours. The study highlights the intricate relationship between the environment and social interactions, emphasising the role of other individuals in shaping these dynamics. One key insight is the newly identified category of “affordance of learning from others,” which enriches our understanding of how children navigate and are influenced by their surroundings.
1. Affordances for Another Agent
This category refers to opportunities the environment provides for others, encouraging a network of mutual support. Children assess not only their own capabilities but also what others can do within specific situations. For example, a child might ask a teacher for help to walk along playground wooden bars, recognising that while the task is difficult for them, it is feasible for someone else. This illustrates how children gauge their own and others’ abilities, promoting various social interactions.
2. Affordances for Joint Action
These opportunities arise when children work together with shared goals, such as participating in group activities. These affordances emerge specifically from collective efforts rather than individual actions. An example is two children playing on a spinner, using their combined effort to make it go faster. When one child falls off, the other stops the activity to help, demonstrating the interdependent nature of joint actions.
3. Affordances of Another Agent
This involves children recognising and responding to the actions that others initiate. For instance, when one child begins a game, it invites others to join, facilitating peer interaction and collaborative play. The social landscape of the playground is shaped by the behaviours of others, influencing decisions about whom to engage with and how. For example, a child might decide to push a spinner to contribute to a group activity, thereby enhancing the shared play experience.
4. Affordances of Learning from Others
This new category describes how observing others can reveal previously unrecognised opportunities for action. By watching peers or teachers engage in certain behaviours, children may discover new ways to interact with their environment. This learning process operates on both an intuitive level, where children recognise possibilities automatically, and a more deliberate level, where they consciously decide to try new actions. For instance, a child observing another successfully climb a challenging structure may be motivated to attempt it themselves, expanding their skills through observation.
We developed an intervention model for promoting an inclusive setting that all institutions and authorities can implement – from playgrounds for toddlers to places to socialise and engage in physical activity for high school students to promote and enhance social interaction and inclusiveness in a built environment. Positive and negative affordances can be identified in the context of social inclusiveness and the type of interactions invited by affordances. Positive affordances in the social context provide individuals’ needs for social behaviours and enhance trust in other individuals. Through positive affordances, individuals feel confident in relationships with each other. On the other hand, negative affordances interfere with an individual’s needs and degrade individuals’ trust. Distrust between individuals prevents the connection of activities within communities and can make individuals feel restricted in communities. Eventually, positive affordances promote social equity, and negative affordances promote social inequity between individuals in a built environment. The notion of affordances proposes that action selection and specification need to be regarded as a dynamic process. Users in built environments are faced with situations where multiple actions are afforded simultaneously.
To ensure the successful uptake and impact of the findings on social affordances in school outdoor environments, several key areas need attention. Further research, such as longitudinal studies and exploration across diverse cultural contexts, is essential to validate and deepen the understanding of social affordances. Demonstration projects, teacher training, and design guidelines can help implement these insights in real-world settings, while securing funding through grants and partnerships will support schools in redesigning spaces to foster social engagement. Commercialisation opportunities exist through the development of educational tools and training resources, which could be protected via intellectual property mechanisms. International collaboration and knowledge-sharing initiatives can promote the framework’s adoption across different cultural contexts, while integrating the findings into educational policies and safety standards will ensure that the recommendations are practical and widely applicable. Overall, the research highlights four categories of social affordances - opportunities for another agent, joint action, affordances of another agent, and learning from others - that shape children’s social interactions, with significant potential to guide the design of inclusive and supportive educational environments.
1. Affordances for Another Agent
This category refers to opportunities the environment provides for others, encouraging a network of mutual support. Children assess not only their own capabilities but also what others can do within specific situations. For example, a child might ask a teacher for help to walk along playground wooden bars, recognising that while the task is difficult for them, it is feasible for someone else. This illustrates how children gauge their own and others’ abilities, promoting various social interactions.
2. Affordances for Joint Action
These opportunities arise when children work together with shared goals, such as participating in group activities. These affordances emerge specifically from collective efforts rather than individual actions. An example is two children playing on a spinner, using their combined effort to make it go faster. When one child falls off, the other stops the activity to help, demonstrating the interdependent nature of joint actions.
3. Affordances of Another Agent
This involves children recognising and responding to the actions that others initiate. For instance, when one child begins a game, it invites others to join, facilitating peer interaction and collaborative play. The social landscape of the playground is shaped by the behaviours of others, influencing decisions about whom to engage with and how. For example, a child might decide to push a spinner to contribute to a group activity, thereby enhancing the shared play experience.
4. Affordances of Learning from Others
This new category describes how observing others can reveal previously unrecognised opportunities for action. By watching peers or teachers engage in certain behaviours, children may discover new ways to interact with their environment. This learning process operates on both an intuitive level, where children recognise possibilities automatically, and a more deliberate level, where they consciously decide to try new actions. For instance, a child observing another successfully climb a challenging structure may be motivated to attempt it themselves, expanding their skills through observation.
We developed an intervention model for promoting an inclusive setting that all institutions and authorities can implement – from playgrounds for toddlers to places to socialise and engage in physical activity for high school students to promote and enhance social interaction and inclusiveness in a built environment. Positive and negative affordances can be identified in the context of social inclusiveness and the type of interactions invited by affordances. Positive affordances in the social context provide individuals’ needs for social behaviours and enhance trust in other individuals. Through positive affordances, individuals feel confident in relationships with each other. On the other hand, negative affordances interfere with an individual’s needs and degrade individuals’ trust. Distrust between individuals prevents the connection of activities within communities and can make individuals feel restricted in communities. Eventually, positive affordances promote social equity, and negative affordances promote social inequity between individuals in a built environment. The notion of affordances proposes that action selection and specification need to be regarded as a dynamic process. Users in built environments are faced with situations where multiple actions are afforded simultaneously.
To ensure the successful uptake and impact of the findings on social affordances in school outdoor environments, several key areas need attention. Further research, such as longitudinal studies and exploration across diverse cultural contexts, is essential to validate and deepen the understanding of social affordances. Demonstration projects, teacher training, and design guidelines can help implement these insights in real-world settings, while securing funding through grants and partnerships will support schools in redesigning spaces to foster social engagement. Commercialisation opportunities exist through the development of educational tools and training resources, which could be protected via intellectual property mechanisms. International collaboration and knowledge-sharing initiatives can promote the framework’s adoption across different cultural contexts, while integrating the findings into educational policies and safety standards will ensure that the recommendations are practical and widely applicable. Overall, the research highlights four categories of social affordances - opportunities for another agent, joint action, affordances of another agent, and learning from others - that shape children’s social interactions, with significant potential to guide the design of inclusive and supportive educational environments.