1

Teaching Outside the Box – Using non-tradi onal, mul -age learning environments in an early
elementary se ng

Erin Koorbatoﬀ
School of Educa on, Thompson Rivers University
Kamloops, BC

Author Note

A capstone project submi ed to Thompson Rivers University in par al fulﬁlment of the
requirements of the degree of Master Educa on.
Presented July 24, 2024

2
Abstract
This paper is set within the context of my experiences as a mul -age classroom teacher, as well
as a mother of three. I began my teaching career as a primary teacher, teaching Kindergarten
through grade three. I was feeling my journey with my students was incomplete because as the
school year ended so did our me together. During this me my own children were having very
diﬀerent school experiences themselves. One of my daughters is neuro divergent and learns in
any environment, on her own and with minimal connec on to peers or teachers. My other
daughter struggles in a tradi onal classroom se ng and needs a deep connec on with her
teacher. My son needs to be able to see relevance in his learning and be able to apply it to real
life situa ons. I no ced that my three children’s diversi es were echoed in my classroom many
mes over and this inspired me to create a learning environment that met more of my students’
needs. In this paper I argue the beneﬁts of a mul -age learning environment guided by childcentered and place-based learning philosophies in an early elementary school se ng. Evidence
illustrates that holding students for mul ple years and adding new students in the lower grades,
allows for deeper connec ons and eases school year me constraints. An applica on is crea ng
an environment where student choice is an integral part of the learning process including using
mul ple spaces around their community, this allows for student autonomy and ownership over
their learning which develops leadership, collabora on skills life long academic success. I
advocate for a mul age learning approach with child-centered and place-based philosophies to
be used in early elementary se ngs and introduced in teacher educa on programs.
Keywords; child-centered learning, mul age classroom, place-based learning, alterna ve
educa on program, connec on, student choice, early elementary

3
Table of Contents
Chapter One: Introduc on……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6
My Interest in Non-tradi onal Learning Environments……………………………………………….…….…… 6
My Journey to Educa on………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7
Signiﬁcance of Mul age Learning Environments…………………………………………………………………… 7
Presen ng the Argument……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8
Paper Overview……………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………… 9
Chapter Two: Literature Review…………………………………………………………………………………………. 10
Deﬁni on of terms………………………………….…………………………………………………………………………. 10
Mul -age Learning Philosophy…………….…………………………………………………………………………….. 11
Individualized learning……………………………………………………………………………………………. 11
Strength of rela onships………….…………………………………………………………………………….. 12
Non-academic areas of growth……………………………………………………………………………..… 13
Opposing views of mul -age learning…………………………………………………………………….. 14
Place-based learning……………………………………………………………………………………………………….…. 15
Child-centred learning…………………………………………………………….…………………………………………. 16
Requirements of the teacher…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 17

4
Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 18
Chapter Three: Applica on………………………………………………………………………………….……………. 20
Experiences with MA, child-centered and PBL environments……………………………….……………. 20
The context…………………………………………………………………………………………….……………… 21
Building B.K. W.I.L.D……………………………………………………………………………………………... 22
Mul -age in a split grade school…………………………………………………………………………….. 23
Learning outside the classroom (PBL)…………………………………………………………….………. 25
Child-centered learning………………………………………………………………………………………….. 27
Speed bumps……………………………………………………..……………………………………………………………… 29
Role of the teacher…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..… 30
The next steps……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…… 30
Beyond the school…………………………………………………………………………………………….……. 30
Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 32
Chapter Four: Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 33
Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 33
Implica ons……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 35
References…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 38

5
Chapter One: Introduc on
In this chapter, I explain my interest in the topic of my Capstone paper and how this
topic relates to my learning as a par cipant in the Master of Educa on program at Thompson
Rivers University. Next, I explain my interest in mul -age environments governed by childcentered, place-based learning philosophies and the signiﬁcance of this topic in local and
provincial contexts. Lastly, I con nue my argument and suppor ng evidence and ﬁnish by
outlining how my paper will progress.
My Interest in Non-tradi onal Learning Environments
Educa on and the learning process has been a passion of mine for decades. It was not
un l my own three children were in school that I truly understood how diverse the process of
learning could be. My eldest daughter struggled with school for most of her educa onal career.
She did not thrive in a room with desks and ﬂuorescent lights but needs wide open spaces and
to be as close to nature as possible for her to be able to process any kind of curricular
informa on. My youngest daughter is neuro divergent, has an eide c memory and does her
best learning on her own, at her own speed, with li le or no teacher or peer involvement. She
needs a limitless achievement ceiling, a fast-paced meline and to be con nually challenged.
My son needs to be interested in and be able to apply his knowledge to his life to ﬁnd success in
learning. Reading a book or watching a video on small engine repair, then taking his newfound
knowledge and applying it to real life situa ons is an example of how he thrives.
I realized I should be doing more to meet the needs of the students I teach. I took my
own children’s needs and began applying these ideals in my classroom. Soon a er this me

6
of reﬂec on and reinven on, I was given the opportunity to develop a mul -age program with a
child-centered, place-based founda on. I then created the “BK WILD (Wilderness Integra on
Learning Design)” and have been using this format for four years.
My Journey to Educa on
My journey to becoming a master’s student was on the encouragement of a valued
colleague. She suggested I do my master’s because I “was already doing a lot of work like it and
why not see where it could take me”. This sugges on got me looking and I was drawn to the
Thompson River’s program. My ﬁrst founda onal connec on between my master’s learning
and my job occurred in EDUC 5021 Philosophy and History of Educa on. This course helped me
solidify my own philosophy around educa on, as well as instruct me on who these founda onal
beliefs ﬁrst started with. To understand where these ideals came from was enriching,
empowering and strengthened my interest and belief in mul -age, child-centered and placebased. EDUC 5041 Diversity: Construc ng Social Reali es was also instrumental in
strengthening my resolve of the importance of these ideals. Understanding diversity allowed
me to see ways that I could further alter my teaching so that the learning environments I
presented to the students became more accessible for every student I work with. Lastly, EDUC
5031 Curriculum Teaching and Learning was my ﬁrst a empt at applying nontradi onal ideals to
the curriculum requirements teachers work with in Bri sh Columbia. It was my ﬁrst ny step in
what I believed to be a signiﬁcant shi in direc on for teachers and students.
Signiﬁcance of Mul -age Learning Environments
This topic is signiﬁcant because mul -age learning environments with a child-centered,
place-based founda on, oﬀer a mul tude of ways for students of all ages and abili es to learn.

7
These types of alterna ve educa on make the en re process more authen c. This type of
learning format provides the opportunity for students to personalize their learning journey.
These environments oﬀer ways for students to learn and share their knowledge in unique ways,
while s ll allowing the teacher to present curricular requirements. Many kinds of learners,
including those who are reluctant, students with diverse needs, as well as those who are neuro
typical and divergent ﬁnd success in a mul -age environment. Students learning in these
environments develop strong ownership over their learning as well as the spaces they learn in.
They develop powerful leadership skills and strengthen problem solving and cri cal thinking.
Teachers ﬁnd that crea ng and teaching in these environments is a gra fying
experience. They develop deep and meaningful rela onships with their students and their
student’s families. The stress associated with the deadlines of a ten-month school year is less as
they hold their students for mul ple years. Teachers oﬀer a wider range of places to learn and
diﬀering ways to do one ac vity which allows their students to ﬁnd what works best for them.
The skills their students learn and use in a mul -age environment are founda onal and will
remain with the students for their en re educa onal career and life.
Presen ng the Argument
In this paper, I argue that using a mul -age, child-centered, place-based learning
environment will strengthen self conﬁdence, leadership, and problem-solving skills as well as
authen c academic and social emo onal learning in all students in early elementary grades.
The ﬁrst reason is that mul -age groupings allow for more me for connec ons to develop
between students, teacher and family members. Nel Nodding believes that home is the ﬁrst
place where educa on begins and having a strong connec on between home and school

8
strengthens the func on of educa on (Smith, 2004, 2020). Mul -age classrooms also create a
balance between age and ability which allows for enhanced social and emo onal skills and
reduces overall stress about academics (Song et al., 2009). Next, child- centred learning
encourages students to have an ac ve role in their learning. This allows learning to become
authen c and important to each student as Maria Montessori believes (Marshall, 2017).
Another reason is, place-based learning develops a sense of belonging, feeling of stewardship
and responsibility of both rural and urban spaces around the school (Place-based Educa on
Evalua on Collabora ve, 2010). Curriculum based learning in the spaces around the school and
in the local community creates strong bonds, apprecia on, and commitment to the community
(Sobel, 2013). Lastly as John Dewey believed that teachers have a responsibility to create an
environment that fosters inquiry and explora on and encourages student autonomy, crea vity
and cri cal thinking (Main, 2023).
Overview of Paper
The second chapter of this paper follows this introduc on and is a literature review
inves ga ng the beneﬁts of mul -age, child-centered learning environments. A discussion of
mul -age cohort grouping, place-based learning and child centred planning are the focal points
for this sec on. In Chapter Three I share my experiences with my topic by sharing the program I
created and con nue to develop. I also discuss my vision for the future development of a
workshop to encourage new and student teachers to consider using a mul -age, child-centered
format in their classrooms. To conclude this paper, I will discuss the implica ons of mul -age,
child-centered learning environments in classrooms in more schools across the province.

9
Chapter Two: Literature Review
In this chapter, I deﬁne terms that I use o en throughout the literature review and
paper. Next, I outline the themes of my argument and present the evidence from the literature.
The themes are as follows: beneﬁts of mul -age learning environments; posi ve aspects of a
child-centered; and the reasons to develop a place-based learning belief system. This is followed
by an explana on of the role of a teacher in a mul -age se ng. The chapter ends with a
summary.
Deﬁni on of Terms
Mul -age cohorts are o en confused with mul grade cohorts. While both are like each
other there are key diﬀerences. Mul grade is o en created out of necessity, it is also known as
a split grade classroom, where school enrollment dictates a combining of more than one grade
in a classroom. A mul -age cohort is a philosophical choice (Ronksley-Pavia et al., 2019) that
creates a community of students of diﬀering ages and abili es that are grouped together
without grade labels (Messer, 2000). The array of student learning needs in a mul -age
classroom meld very well with a child-centred teaching philosophy. Also called student or
learner centred, this is when the teacher provides the resources, sets the stage for appropriate
and intellectual discussions by encouraging students to inves gate their curiosi es with peers
and discover informa on for themselves. The teacher is the guide, rather the conductor in the
learning process (Gonzales, 2014). Allowing students to take an ac ve role in their learning will
o en shi learning away from textbooks and towards learning by doing which is found with the
place-based learning idea. Place-based learning (PBL) is the process of using local spaces to
teach curricular content with hands-on, experien al learning opportuni es (Sobel, 2013).

10
Mul -age Learning Philosophy.
Mul -age class composi on is not a new topic in educa on. Song et al. (2009) stated
that at their incep on mul -age classrooms were the norm and found in the one room
schoolhouses that were sca ered across America. At that me, the grouping was out of
necessity and convenience, children of school age went to the closest school regardless of their
age or grade. Currently, Messer (2000), noted that educa on has con nued to embrace the
philosophy in some schools across the United States of America, Canada and worldwide for
reasons no longer than just necessity. Messer con nued to state, mul -age was considered a
rural school situa on, again out of necessity, now however, mul -age is considered a possible
op on for rural or urban school se ngs alike. Educators that believe in the beneﬁts of mul -age
learning and teaching and are making the choice to use these ideas in their spaces.
The core philosophy of mul -age educa on is based on children’s developmental
diversity, and according to Bingham (1995), this diversity is celebrated and valued as the teacher
embraces the diverse community of learning needs their classroom possesses. The following
paragraphs outline some of the beneﬁts of and some diﬃcul es with using the mul -age
philosophy in classrooms today.
Individualized learning.
A mul -age class, Bingham (1995) stated, is an inten onal grouping of planned diversity.
This prac ce allows for students to have an individualized experience where they are oﬀered
learning opportuni es according to their needs, interests and strengths. Ronksley-Pavia et al.
(2019) believed that using this type of prac ce in turn increases student contentment and
happiness at school, which can result in less issues with problem behaviours.

11
Bingham (1995) explained that in a mul -age se ng children with more diverse needs
tend to stand out less because everyone is working at a diﬀerent level with materials that work
best for them, there are diﬀerent tools and accommoda ons for anyone that would like or need
them. Bingham’s research also supported the idea that teachers are able to view their group
with a broad spectrum of ability where everyone ﬁnds a spot that is uniquely theirs based on
their speciﬁc strengths and stretches. From this spectrum a student can move freely as they
progress and can par cipate as they are able to. For example, a student may begin the year by
si ng quietly and observing, then move to a comfortable partnership and then a small group as
their needs and strengths grow.
In their paper, Song et al. (2009) wrote that a mul age cohort is usually together for
mul ple years which not only creates a sense of con nuity but erases the school year deadlines
and allows students to con nue their path to success when they are ready, not just because
their me in their grade is over.
Strength of Rela onships
A mul age classroom allows for deeper and con nuous rela onships between students,
students and teachers and teachers and the families. Rowland (1999) wrote that the con nuity
of the same teacher, with the same teaching style and expecta ons allow for consistency of
learning experiences and sets the stage for deeper more meaningful learning overall. This also
allows the teacher and families the experience of watching learning happen over a longer
period, crea ng a more detailed picture of the progress.
In her book, Bingham (1995) explained that a beneﬁt of strong and genuine rela onships
is evident at the beginning of a new school year. In a straight grade se ng the ﬁrst few weeks

12
of school are spent building rela onships, working on rou nes and learning expecta ons from
each other. In a mul -age se ng these rela onships have already been forged by returning
students and these students then model the expecta ons and rou nes for the new students
joining the group. This means the ﬁrst weeks of start up are smooth and less stressful in a
mul -age se ng.
Another founda onal part of the mul -age philosophy is the element of care that is felt
in all the rela onships created in this type of group. Bergman (2004) explained how Nel
Nodding believed in the importance of care in the moral development of children. One of the
ways she believed teachers could illustrate their care is by modeling caring and expected
behaviours to their students. Modeling is evident in many classrooms and in the mul -age
group it is done extensively between teacher and student and as well as between students
themselves.
Non academic Areas of Growth
Rowland (1999) expressed that another beneﬁt to mul -age classrooms is the social and
emo onal growth that occurs in the class community. The students are constantly interac ng
with classmates of the same and diﬀerent ages. They are learning from each other, helping each
other polish skills in listening, empathy and how to oﬀer and accept help. This paper stated that
the mul -age class develops a feel of a family unit, because there is so much support and
interac on. The no on that mul -age classes become like family is not uncommon, Bingham
(1995) also suggested that the group func ons much like a family in that the whole group
supports one another’s unique developmental path and accepts everyone for where they are in

13
that journey. It is noted in this paper that students in a mul age class are o en more competent
in areas like study habits, coopera on, self mo va on and general feelings about school.
Sikander (2015) explained how the mul age grouping develops the non-academic skill
growth that will help equip children with the social competence they require to be successful in
society. Crea ng produc ve members of society is one part of John Dewey’s philosophy of
educa on.
Opposing views of Mul -age Learning
Ronksley-Pavia (2019) suggested that percep on, me for professional development and
tangible evidence of success are barriers to the mul -age ideology. Parental percep on that
their child will not get as good an educa on in a mul -age room for reasons such as their child
is older and will have to babysit or supervise younger students instead of focusing on their own
work, or their child is young and will be lost because they don’t have as much experience at
school. According to this research this is something teachers of mul -age classes need to
address.
Song et al. (2009) surmised that there is not a lot of speciﬁc training about mul -age
teaching available. Diﬀeren a on of the mul -age levels is daun ng and worrisome to some
teachers, according to this research, and teachers do not believe they have the skillset to deal
with the mul -age expecta ons.
The research by Song et al. (2009) went on to explain that administrators are concerned
about mee ng the accountability standards of their school boards. They need to know all
classes in their school are mee ng the requirements and the mul -age classrooms do not have

14
grade speciﬁc learning or standardized tests. Song et al. went on to suggest it is diﬃcult to ﬁt
the mul -age classrooms into the tradi onal organiza on or most schools.
Place-based Learning
Place-based learning (PBL) ﬁts the mul -age philosophy in that PBL allows the teacher to
oﬀer a literal world of learning spaces which is supported by Sobel (2013) who wrote that for
students to experience rich and meaningful learning teachers need to ﬁnd a way to link the
classroom to the local area outside the school walls. PBL uses local, community spaces and
natural environments to help teach core concepts from subjects across the curriculum.
Sikander (2015) supported this idea and draws upon Dewey’s ideas by expressing that students
need to be personally connected to their learning spaces to ﬁnd a meaningful purpose to create
lifelong learning. Iqbal (2019) reiterated these same ideals that real world applica on of
learning, with hands on experiences increases student interest, which in turn improves overall
achievement.
Sobel (2013) also men oned that in addi on to the academic results students also
develop strong es to their local spaces and a personal apprecia on for the natural world
outside their classroom which leads to a commitment to become a caring, ac ve ci zen of their
own community. PLB exposes students to issues concerning the places around them in a way
that is understandable and real to them. Elbaz (2023) supported Sobel’s ideas and stated that
through exploring the topics in the curriculum, teachers help iden fy issues that concern the
students and then encourage and prac ce problem solving skills to work out real solu ons. The
students become the problem solvers and step towards being ac ve society members rather
than passive observers.

15
There are downfalls to the place-based learning ideal. A recent study by Yemini (2023)
noted that PBL is s ll considered unconven onal and innova ve in many places. When
implemented in a school PBL could be seen as controversial because it disrupts the tradi onal
role of school and teaching. Yemini explained that there is a level of discomfort and disbelief
among some educators, that learning outside of the classroom is as eﬀec ve as regular se ngs.
This research also suggested that another downfall is that it takes me to develop and prepare a
place-based learning philosophy. Teachers need to prac ce and polish these founda onal ideals
and me moves quickly during the school year, which makes professional development of this
type diﬃcult to a ain.
Child-centered learning
When contempla ng the idea of mul -age learning one thinks about the student as the
core of the idea. Sikander (2015) noted that child or student-centered learning melds into the
mul -age classroom because both are about students having an ac ve and genuine role in their
learning and being at the center of the learning-teaching process. Naimanova’s (2023) paper
suggested that the child or student-centered approach encourages lifelong learning, selfdiscipline and crea vity in all students. Rosenbusch (1985) explained that child-centred
learning takes the stages of a child’s development into considera on and works within those
speciﬁc parameters. Rosenbusch explained further that children are naturally curious and
involve their en re body in their explora ons and learning. They want to move and touch and
experience learning ﬁrsthand which is encouraged in a child-centered space.
Child-centered learning is a construc vist view of educa on where the student is
involved in every stage of the learning process. Sikander (2015) explained that it is designed to

16
support every student in individual and authen c ways according to unique strengths and
stretches. Sikander goes on to suggest that the curriculum should not be imposed on the
student, but the student should have voice and the right to make decisions about their
educa on. Akdemir and Ozcelik’s (2019) paper men oned that the learning approaches o en
used in child-centred learning spaces are also key approaches in mul -age learning, such as
inquiry based, coopera ve, peer instruc on and team-based learning. These approaches
support the idea that students need to produce informa on rather than consume it.
While there are many posi ve aspects to a child-centered approach there are some
diﬃcult aspects as well as noted by Akdemir and Ozcelik (2019). They stated that classroom
management looks diﬀerent in a child-centered classroom. Child-centered spaces are o en loud
due to conversa ons on going throughout the day. Behavioural issues could occur due to a
student feeling helpless and not knowing where to get help or a student not accep ng the
expecta ons of responsibility for themselves or owning behaviours. Rosenbusch (1985)
furthered this idea of diﬃcult management by sugges ng that elementary school students are
o en s ll driven by their need to move their bodies, they cannot sit s ll for long periods of me.
In a child-centered space they are able to move when needed and can use diﬀerent sea ng
op ons than the ones found in typical classroom se ngs. Rosenbusch suggested that quiet and
s ll does not happen o en in a child-centred space and for some students and teachers a childcentered space will not work for them and they may ﬁnd what they need in a teacher-lead class.
Requirements of the Teacher
The idea of mul -age learning is made stronger with child-centered, place-based
ideology intertwined throughout. The piece of the picture yet to be discussed is the teacher

17
whose beliefs and experience pull all the parts together. Elbaz (2023) explained that the teacher
needs to create the environment that is strong enough to include fascina ng and exci ng
ﬁeldtrips, projects and experiences outside the walls of the classroom, and yet be gentle and
kind enough to allow the quietest and shy students to feel seen, valued and included.
Naimanova (2023) added that the teacher needs to be able to communicate with all students
about their experiences and help them translate these experiences to meaningful learning. This
learning needs to cover curricular requirements for more than one curriculum but s ll
diﬀeren ated in order to meet the mul ple needs of those same students. The teacher needs to
be familiar with child development, according to Christensen (1992) and ﬂexible with
management expecta ons. Messer (2000) concluded that the mul -age teacher is the invisible
facilitator of real life, genuine learning to the students they work with.
Summary
The topic of mul -age, child-centered, place-based learning has been discussed in the
literature. There seems to be a gap in relevant research around this topic. There are several
papers from over twenty years ago and then a number from less than fours ago. There is s ll a
lot of area to cover on the topic of mul -age teaching and learning, but the research is sound
and more will follow. The literature reviewed in the above pages explains the reasons why
mul -age teaching with child-centered and place-based philosophies is beneﬁcial to learners
and appealing to some teachers. There are diﬃcul es associated with the same, however, with
me and pa ence these diﬃcul es can be remedied. In the next sec on of this paper, I will
illustrate my personal applica on of the argument that mul -age, child-centered, place-based

18
learning is beneﬁcial to all students in their curricular learning as well as social emo onal
development.

19
Chapter Three: Applica on
In this chapter I discuss the prac cal applica on of my argument in my role of a nontradi onal, mul -age classroom teacher at my semi-rural school in the West Kootenays of
Bri sh Columbia. I draw from my experiences from implemen ng and teaching in a mul -age
(MA), child-centered, place-based learning (PBL) program the BK WILD (Wilderness Integra on
Learning Design). I explore the eﬀects of child-centered, place-based learning on the
mo va on, social emo onal, leadership and problem-solving skills of the mul -age students in
the WILD program. Next, I summarize how my experiences connect to the literature and
argument that a mul -age environment with child-centered, place-based ideology is beneﬁcial
to many types of learners. I conclude by explaining my plan to share these ideals with teachers
and teacher candidates in my local school districts and ul mately the rest of Bri sh Columbia.
Experiences with MA, child-centered, PBL environments
In 2016, the government of Bri sh Columbia rolled out its “new” curriculum for
kindergarten to grade nine. I was teaching in my ﬁrst classroom and was excited about the
curriculum change because it aligned with my value system and educa onal philosophy. The
new curriculum was created to have students be more involved in their learning and to develop
skills like problem solving, deep thinking and lifelong learning (Government of Bri sh Columbia,
2024). I was teaching a grade one, grade two split but used some of the philosophies of mul age, child-centered, place-based learning in the room. My students were between the ages of
ﬁve and eight years old and had a vast array of skills and abili es that ranged from below
kindergarten level to intermediate grades. I focused on what they could do, and we moved
through the year with great success. I used the same philosophy with my next class which was

20
kindergarten and when I moved schools, I had a kindergarten and grade one class. I had seen
how child-centered, place-based learning worked for students. A favourite example of this is
taking our math lesson outside to skip count on chalk lily pads. The students had drawn the lily
pads and printed their skip coun ng onto them. We then hopped like frogs and ribbited our
numbers out over the diﬀerent lily pad pathways. We chose lily pads because we no ced the
lilies blooming on our neighbourhood walk that morning. The students were engaged in their
learning, connec ng to their community and par cipated as they could. Some drew the lily pads
and others printed the numbers or said the numbers or just hopped with the group. The largest
frustra on I had during this period was that my me with my students was over too quickly.
With the help of my administrator, we constructed a plan to hold onto my students longer. I
was given the go ahead to create a mul age program.
The context
I was given the opportunity to build a multi-age program in early 2020. I worked with
my administrator, and we presented the idea to the rest of the school staff and to the school
district. My motivation and project proposal came from a frustrated discussion I had with my
administrator a short time before. I felt rushed and like I was pushing my students to places
they were academically not ready for. I felt like their results were only memorization and that
they were not actually internalizing or connecting with the activities. I suggested keeping the
students I felt needed extra time with me and add new students to the group at the beginning
of the school year. My administration supported this, and the multiage idea was born. We
presented this idea to staff and to the school district and were given the green light, with the
addendum that we run two classrooms with two teachers to make it happen in our school.

21
The BK WILD program started September 2020 under full pandemic restric ons, a pair of
team teachers and forty students. In June 2024 we completed our fourth year together and the
beneﬁts to the students have been as we hoped; natural progression, ownership over learning
outcomes and quality of work as well as strong leadership development for every student. An
example of this is when we accept student work, we ask the ques on “Is this your best eﬀort
today?”, students take a few moments to answer either yes, it is their best for today or no that
they should go and make it stronger. We as teachers support their decision or suggest a
diﬀerent choice if we feel the student is not being honest in their decision. Students can then
go back and self edit, buddy edit or ask for adult consulta on to ﬁnd ways to make their
assignment stronger, some mes we see a student has done what they can for the situa on and
accept their work as is. Students have WILD buddies and “good ﬁt” people they know are
posi ve choices to work with. This example is evidence that supports the argument mul -age,
child-centered, place-based learning environments support students becoming strong self
advocates, crea ve problem solvers, and develop pride and connec on to their cohort and
learning spaces.
Building B.K. W.I.L.D.
The ﬁrst step in the crea on of the WILD program was to ﬁll it with students. There was
no screening process instead we had parent informa on sessions. This was so families
understood what the vision for the WILD program is. From there their name was added to a list
of interested families so when it came me to place students, we had parental consent. We
wanted parents to understand the major diﬀerence between BK WILD and mainstream
schooling is the meline; we intend to keep students in the program for the dura on of their

22
primary years. We strive to build a community of students of diﬀering ages and abili es that
would work together without grade level labels, as Messer (2000) stated. It was my
philosophical choice to create a mul age cohort as Ronksley-Pavia et al. (2019) noted and
miraculously enough my teaching partner’s philosophies were on point with mine.
I had been teaching at Brent Kennedy (BK) for over a year and a half when this
opportunity arose. During this me, I made many strong, caring rela onships with families and
the children of these families were the ﬁrst ones placed in the program due to these preexis ng
rela onships. I wanted the element of care to be evident every day from the ﬁrst day forward.
Like Bergman (2004) explains Nel Nodding’s philosophy of care, the modeling of caring
behaviour would be present from the start, being modeled by teachers and students as well as
we welcomed the new students every year in September. My teaching partner and I started the
ﬁrst year with forty students between the ages of ﬁve and nine years old.
Mul age in a split grade school. When I ﬁrst proposed the mul -age classroom I was
drawn to the idealized idea, explained by Song et al. (2009), of a classroom where every student
could work at their own pace to achieve their full poten al. I hoped for a place students loved
to come to and felt empowered to take steps towards leadership within the class community
and eventually to the school and greater community as well. We started our ﬁrst year of the BK
WILD under COVID restric ons and in hindsight, this turned out to be a gi . We had to create
cohorts of two classes, which were predetermined by our district requirements for the program.
We had to stay together for recess breaks, so our students were together for all aspects of their
school day. We gelled as a cohesive unit very quickly. We were together for eighty percent of
our day, and we no ced that by November the grade/age lines were diminishing, everyone

23
played and worked with everyone, there were no big kids or li le kids, just classmates. We had
created a family feel that Bingham (1995) wrote about in her book.
Throughout the next three years of the WILD program the mul -age ideology got
stronger and more common place with our students. They stopped worrying about what grade
they were in and had become a “Mul ager”. Our second September together made the
beneﬁts of mul -age very clear. We were hearing from our families about how smooth the end
of the summer was and how easy the beginning of the school year had been. We knew the
con nuity that Rowland (1999) wrote about was suppor ng our families as they transi oned
back to school. Students knew which classroom they were going to, who would be teaching
them and who most of their classmates would be. One of our parents let us know how diﬀerent
start up was for her family prior to her children being in the program. She explained that the
current year had been stress free and full of excitement, rather than anxiety and worry. She
went on to say that this was the ﬁrst year her boys had slept properly for the days prior to
school star ng. She was not the only parent to comment on the ease of the second year start
up. These parent communica ons support my argument that these kind of learning
environments are beneﬁcial to students and families because the con nuity lowers stress
related to school.
Year Three and Four had similar moments of success. As teachers, my colleague and I
no ced how quickly we got into the academic side of the new school year. Prior to teaching in
the WILD program, we both agreed that the ﬁrst four, up to six weeks of the new year was spent
working on rou nes, expecta ons and ge ng to know each other as a class community.
Because of the founda ons of the program, we were ready to start academics by the second

24
week of school because we had se led into rou nes and expecta ons so fast. An example of
this readiness was when we took all forty students on a day long ﬁeldtrip during the second
week of year three. In our fourth year we took them on a ﬁeldtrip on the Friday of the ﬁrst
week. This is more evidence to support the argument that non-tradi onal mul -age ideals are
beneﬁcial because more me can be focused on curricular learning sooner in the school year.
Another example and support for my argument for the beneﬁts of the mul -age se ng
is that every student in the group was able to par cipate in some way in every ac vity and
project we did. Both Bingham (1995) and Ronksley-Pavia et al. (2019) spoke to this idea that
even students with diverse needs will ﬁnd success. WILD students understand that everyone
learns in a unique fashion on their own meline and therefore everyone can do and par cipate
as best they can in all ac vi es. For example, we did a Canadian predator inquiry project in the
fall. Some of our students were not wri ng conﬁdently yet, and others were not yet very strong
readers, however, they completed the project along side our strongest students. The stronger
students used wri ng and higher leveled books to ﬁnd their informa on, then shared their
learning by wri ng paragraphs or making a slide show on the computers. They then shared their
informa on with the less conﬁdent learners and at the same me these less conﬁdent learners
used videos and picture books to gather the informa on they needed. They then used
sentences or art to share their learning. Everyone was successful and everyone had a uniquely
completed project they were proud of.
Learning outside the classroom (PBL). Having started the program during the pandemic
we were encouraged to take our students outside as o en as possible. We commi ed an en re
day, WILD Wednesday, to outdoor, place-based learning. Sobel (2013) and Sikander (2015) both

25
men oned how important linking the classroom to the local spaces is for student success. The
students need to have a personal connec on to the spaces beyond the classroom to experience
lifelong learning. This idea is echoed by Iqbal (2019) who stated that students need hands on,
experien al learning to ﬁnd enthusiasm and interest in their learning. This in turn will boost
their connec on and achievement levels. Students with personal connec ons to issues related
to their space will be more interested in solving the issues. The space is real and important to
each student and therefore so are the issues. This is the ﬁrst step in students becoming lifelong
learners, a phrase John Dewey coined (Soble, 2013), as well as becoming ac ve par cipants in
society rather than just observers as Elbaz (2023) remarked.
Our school loca on experiences all four seasons of the year and as such, we decided
early on that we needed a sheltered gathering place outside the classroom. We found a space
on our school grounds, and named it “The Nest”, this is where we start and end all our outdoor
days. At ﬁrst it was a covered space thanks to tarps and crea ve rope work and then a donated
carport frame with tarps kept the rain and snow oﬀ us. We no ced that a er a few weeks our
students were quite protec ve of their nest and the forest around it. They took it personally
when they found li er or damage done to their area. This was our ﬁrst problem to solve and
another example that supports the argument that the using mul -age learning with a PBL
founda on will strengthen advocacy, problem solving and stewardship skills for all students.
We had a “campﬁre”, which is our name for gathering me and brainstormed the
problem and possible solu ons. The students came up with reasons for the li er and damage.
Such things like trash falling out of a pocket, not enough trash cans out in the forest, trash
blown in from somewhere else. Any damage they felt was accidental because “the non-wilders

26
don’t know the trees like us, they don’t understand that they need to treat them kindly”. We
then came up with solu ons which involved asking a supervisor to bring a trash bag out during
recess, so kids had a place to put garbage and some WILD students created posters asking
students to leave garbage inside or in a zipped-up pocket. Regarding the damage, a group of
students wanted to create a short presenta on about the trees and how the damage to them
needs to be addressed. They then went to the other classrooms in our school and made the
presenta ons. They explained that the trees are alive, and damage weakens their resistance to
bugs and disease. They also men oned the beneﬁts of having acres of forest to play and learn
in and what it could be if the trees disappeared. With this experience we saw students working
together to solve an issue that was real and personal. They prac ced leadership and
stewardship skills and they accepted everyone did what they could within their comfort levels.
Child-centered learning. I did my teacher training in 1999 with UBC’s WKTEP (West
Kootenay Teacher Educa on Program). When I graduated in 2000, we had heard the whisper of
a “new” ideal that was star ng to make its way into the educa on system in Canada. We had an
hour-long lecture on a classroom in BC that was doing things diﬀerently, the students were
making decisions about their learning. This was my ﬁrst introduc on to child-centered or
student-centered learning. I was intrigued and was drawn to this style of teaching, which was
contradictory to the way I had just spent a year prac cing with my classmates. The next me I
experienced child centered learning was years later when I was awarded my ﬁrst classroom. A
colleague was teaching in this way next door to me. I saw what Sikander (2015) described as
children being the center of the learning process, par cipa ng in an ac ve and genuine role in
what happened in the classroom. I saw this teacher taking her students’ developmental

27
abili es into account with the vast op ons of choices she oﬀered them for their many ac vi es.
For example, during a le er forma on lesson she had diﬀerent tools to use, big pencils, small
pencils, pencils with grippers, triangle pencils – there was also diﬀerent types and colors of
paper and size of lines to print on. Her students were excited and engaged in their learning and
each one of them was ﬁnding success with the ac vity.
I wanted this for my students. I then planned my ac vi es for my students with their
natural curiosity and abili es in mind. I wanted them to learn with wonderment and hands on
experiences, as Rosenbusch (1985) suggests. When I moved schools, I used a similar philosophy
un l the BK WILD was created when I truly witnessed and experienced the beneﬁts of childcentered learning. The ﬁrst month of year one was spent solidifying rela onships and making
plans. We had a group “brain dump” about the diﬀerent topics the students were interested in
and then spent me cross referencing them to the curriculum. We kept the brain dump poster
and every me we started a new topic the students would ﬁnd it on the poster. We’ve done
this every year since and it has become a favourite ac vity, we now add names to the
sugges ons. This ac vity encourages ownership over our learning and the students love
connec ng names to subjects. Sikander (2015) suggested that the curriculum should not be
imposed on students, but they should be able to make choices involving what and how they
learn. The beginning of the year brain dump allows students to feel heard and understand that
everyone’s choice is considered, however, we may not get to study everyone’s sugges ons in
one year. Most know, however, that they will have another opportunity the next year in BK
WILD and this links back to the idea of the beneﬁt of con nuity Rowland (1999) speaks of.

28
Speed Bumps
Trying to ﬁt a mul age, child-centered, place-based learning environment into a
tradi onal school has been exci ng, rewarding and challenging as we encountered some speed
bumps along the road to change. We call any moment of diﬃculty a speed bump in the WILD
program, because it is not stopping forward movement, just slowing it down. Much like the
research suggests in the paper wri en by Song et al. (2009), there is not a lot of professional
development around mul age learning, child/student centered learning, or place-based
learning. Evidence of an example of a speed bump regarding professional development on this
topic is that my teacher partner and I spend a lot of me researching ideas and ways to make
this collec on of powerful ideologies work for us and our students. The biggest hurdle we have
encountered regarding mul age is the requirements for repor ng. The government requires
we report on grade level achievement which is diﬃcult in a space with no grade labels. Another
example of a speed bump, which is stated in my argument, is the percep on of our program by
some of our colleagues. We have found there are two streams of thought; the ﬁrst is
men oned in Yemini’s (2023) paper and are people that ﬁnd our program unconven onal,
almost controversial and are not willing to hear or see the beneﬁts we are experiencing with our
students. The second stream of people are the ones that are suppor ve, but do not want to
know anymore about it and only see the management issues that Akdemir and Ozcelik (2019)
and Rosenbauch (1985) spoke to in their research. They see the wiggling, and noise that comes
from this kind of environment and not the engagement that is present at the same me. It is a
goal of mine to build capacity among other educators to see the magic that this kind of learning
space can create.

29
The Role of the Teacher
Commi ng to the mul age, child-centered, place-based learning model was a leap of
faith. Thankfully, I am ﬁrm in my philosophy and worked with another amazing educator that is
just as enthusias c about the possibili es of the BK WILD program as I am. Together we have
created and con nue to develop this program. Just as the research by Messer (2000) and Elbaz
(2023) states, we have created and become the facilitators of a space where deep, engaging,
real, lifelong learning happens for students between the ages of ﬁve to ten years old. Our
strongest evidence of this is the suppor ve communica on we have with our students and their
families. We know they love coming to school and are excited about their learning because
they tell us so on a regular basis.
The Next Steps
The plan for the BK WILD program is to con nue as a mul age, child-centered, placebased learning environment. For the 2024/2025 year my class enrollment will be twenty-four,
ﬁve- to nine-year-olds. Due to a drop in school enrollment, there is no longer the opportunity
for team teaching which means a dras c change for the WILD program. This is another speed
bump. The future for the WILD at the school is solid, I am going to carry on and be an
ambassador for mul age learning and all it entails. My organized plan is to currently focus on
early primary and beginning intermediate students. In the future I aspire to have a minimum of
three teachers teaching our program so we can increase our program to reach kindergarten
through to grade six working together as a cohesive unit
Beyond the school. It is important to me to spread the word about what we are doing in
the BK WILD. I plan on developing a short workshop about the beneﬁts of crea ng a mul -age,

30
child-centered, place-based learning environment. The workshop will tell the story and reasons
behind the BK WILD and then have a series of “How To…” video presenta ons for teachers to
watch and then have handouts to refer to and take home with them as well as le ng them
know about my blog spot, which will oﬀer more tools to refer to.
The workshop. The objec ve behind the workshop is to educate teachers and teacher
candidates about what mul -age learning is, the beneﬁts to students and what it could look like
in their classroom. I would start the workshop with a brain dump of what the par cipants,
know, think and wonder about mul -age learning. Everyone would have their own KTW page
and then we’d share out. This will guide our learning for the day, I will then circle the ques ons
that I have videos for and leave the rest for the ques on period at the end of the me. A er
this I will tell the story of BK WILD, with photo presenta ons as well as examples of students’
work.
We will then refer to the wonder sec on of the brain dump and start answering
ques ons – with video examples and related pages. Videos will be on subjects like, building
connec ons with families, communica ng graded learning expecta ons in a nongraded cohort,
numeracy with ﬁve to nine years old, taking all learning outside, the buddy system and ge ng
started to list a few. I an cipate the topics will increase as me goes on and we will likely not be
able to see all the videos in the workshop, but they will be posted on my blog site. We will
make me at the end for any ques ons le unanswered then go back to the know and think
part of our brain dump and discuss any reﬂec ons or changes of mind there may have been. I
plan on oﬀering this workshop to our local teacher training program as well our district to begin
with. I would like to oﬀer it at the provincial primary teacher’s conference as well.

31
Summary
In summary, my experience developing and teaching in the BK WILD program has
allowed me to solidify my belief in the beneﬁts, as represented in the literature, of a mul -age,
child-centered, place-based learning environment. I have witnessed the development of deep
connec ons within our class community, and a family feel in my classroom. I have seen
students of all abili es ﬁnd great success in their ac vi es and have felt the love for their
learning. I have heard a child of six oﬀer kind words to a child of eight who was struggling with
wri ng and reminding them that everyone learns at their own speed in their own me. I have
felt the anger and disappointment of the group when their learning space was damaged and
encouraged them to take their energy and transform it into a solu on to the problem. I have
heard the families of my students explain their gra tude for a peaceful and stress-free start to
the school year. Finally, I have felt the pride and fulﬁllment of knowing that I am oﬀering the
best space for every student in my care to thrive and develop a lifelong love of learning. It is
evident that more educators need to consider using the ideologies of mul -age, child-centered
and place-based learning in their prac ces as outlined in this paper. I plan to share my
experience with as many educators as possible by oﬀering professional development
opportuni es, adding to my blog space and con nuing to teach in this manner. In the ﬁnal
chapter, I will summarize the previous chapters and will explain the implica ons of my argument
on a local and provincial level.

32
Chapter Four: Conclusion
In this paper, I argue that using a child-centered, place-based learning philosophy in a
mul -age classroom will strengthen social emo onal skills which in turn creates authen c and
personalized academic results for all primary learners. Students will develop skills such as
eﬀec ve communica on, crea ng and maintaining rela onships, self awareness and goal
se ng. I make this argument because I have experienced the posi ve impact on a learner when
they are supported and encouraged to learn at their own speed in their own way. In this
chapter, I illustrate how the ideas and claims from the ﬁrst three chapters are connected. I then
explain the success of the argument in this paper and end by deﬁning the prac cal and
theore cal implica ons of this paper’s ﬁndings.
Summary
In the ﬁrst chapter, I explained how my interest in alterna ve learning environments
evolved from my observa ons of the diverse learning needs of my own children. I then
discussed how these revela ons translated to the needs of the students in my classroom. Next, I
explained how becoming a Master of Educa on Student increased the depth of my
understanding of mul -age, child-centered and place-based learning philosophies. I go on to
illustrate how being in the master’s program strengthened my mo va on to use these
ideologies in my own prac ce as well as take steps to make the change I feel necessary to
improve educa onal experiences for all students. The last part of the chapter connected how
my personal experience and interests support the argument that mul -age grouping with a
child-centered and place-based learning philosophy is beneﬁcial to all learners.

33
In the second chapter, I connected my argument to the exis ng literature about mul age, child-centered and place-based learning. The themes I explored with the exis ng literature
are beneﬁts of each ideology and how one works with the others. The literature illustrates
beneﬁts such as students experiencing less stress about school because there is a more relaxed
meline for mastery of skills (Bingham, 1995), a natural increase in leadership development as
well as improving communica on skills (Sikander, 2015) all while being engaged and uniquely
successful in their academics (Song et al., 2009). I also connected to the literature that stated
some of the diﬃcul es (speed bumps) associated with using and developing alterna ve learning
environments such as these. The literature review also outlined that diﬃcul es stem largely
from a lack of support and me for professional development for educators interested in
teaching this way (Ronksley & Pavia, 2019) as well as school leadership struggling with trying to
make non-tradi onal learning ﬁt into the structure of tradi onal schools (Song et al. 2009). The
literature examined in the second chapter supported my argument that mul -age, childcentered, place-based learning is beneﬁcial for all learners and that for these beneﬁts to be
more vastly felt, more support for interested educators is required.
In the third chapter, I address how my teaching and development of the BK WILD
program connected to the literature in Chapter Two through the prac cal applica on of using
child-centered and place-base learning ideologies in a mul -age classroom se ng. I shared my
experiences of developing learning spaces that students connect to and are comfortable in
while presen ng ac vi es that met more of their needs, more of the me in comparison to
what I was doing prior. I explained that many of the beneﬁts outlined in Chapter Two had been
witnessed in my program throughout the fours years of its existence. I witnessed students

34
gaining self conﬁdence in all aspects of their school day, taking responsibility for and pride in
their learning, advoca ng for their needs and the needs of their classmates. I saw returning
students suppor ng and working with new students to learn classroom expecta ons. I found
student engagement and excitement over every ac vity increasing with me as well as a deep
connec on and stewardship towards all the diﬀerent learning spaces we u lized. I had parents
share their gra tude and enthusiasm with me over the fact that their children were excited and
relaxed about school and learning. I experienced a sense of family and connec on that got
stronger every year as the grade labeling faded away to nothing and we had become a group of
“mul ager” students, teachers and families. Lastly, I explained that I had seen all students in
the BK WILD, regardless of their diversity of needs, ﬁnd authen c and personal success at
school. They had go en what they needed, when and how they needed it because of the mul age, child-centered, place-based learning environment in which we learned. I was able to make
many clear connec ons to the literature from these experiences that outlined the beneﬁts of
these kinds of learning philosophies.
Implica ons
This paper holds both theore cal and prac cal implica ons that should be considered by
educators, administrators, school districts, teacher educa on programs and the Ministry of
Educa on. Mee ng the diverse needs of the many students in their classrooms is one of the key
responsibili es every educator accepts. Using a mul -age, child-centered, place-based
philosophy is a pedagogical prac ce that can fulﬁll this responsibility. While using nontradi onal ideologies can be unnerving, the evolu on of the learning process in these
environments is rich, meaningful and personal for each student. Removing grade labels allows

35
every student to do what works best for them, regardless of their grade level expecta ons.
Involving students in what and how they learn develops self advocacy skills. Changing the
spaces that students learn in encourages stewardship and steps towards being an involved
ci zen. More research in the areas of alterna ve educa on, speciﬁcally in child-centered, PBL
and how both work within a mul -age framework is needed to highlight this kind of teaching
and learning to more educators and teacher candidates. More research and celebra on of
educators using these philosophies will ensure that their beneﬁts become widespread in the
ﬁeld of educa on.
In the prac cal sense I would like for this paper to inspire other educators to try
alterna ve ideologies in one or mul ple ways. I would like administrators to gain understanding
of what a mul -age classroom could like in their schools and ways they can support and
encourage their staﬀ to try these philosophies. There are many steps involved in making
adapta ons to a school to help an alterna ve learning program ﬁt. However, the rewards to the
students, families and teachers outweigh the risks many mes over.
For a vast change such as this to take place, alterna ve educa on environments such as
those including mul -age, child-centered and place-based models, need to become more
common place. For this to happen there needs to be a large inﬂux of interest and ﬁnancial
support from the provincial government. School districts would then in turn support their
administrators and school leaders to spend me researching and working towards
implementa on in their school. This would encourage teachers to consider using these
philosophies. The change needs to expand to future teachers as well. Teacher Educa on
Programs across the province will need to support and encourage their teacher candidates to

36
consider using these ideologies as they start their career paths. There needs to be extensive
support and an extended meline for this change to occur. Teachers need to be equipped with
the skills required to develop a deep understanding of the beneﬁts of these pedagogical
prac ces. Believing in the beneﬁts for the students in their classrooms will strengthen their
commitment to the change needed. When teachers can connect the new ideals to their already
exis ng philosophies and have a clear pathway to the development of these ideals, they will be
more likely to implement them in their learning spaces. When teachers feel supported and
valued for the risks they are taking by trying an alterna ve approach, they will con nue to
strengthen their abili es and collaborate with more staﬀ members. These are the ﬁrst steps to
systemic change. If successful this means that any student in the public educa on system could
have an educa onal experience that is powerful, unique and will set them up for a successful
future as a conﬁdent, ac ve member of society.

37
References
Akdemir, E., Ozcelik, C. (2019). The inves ga on of the a tudes of teachers towards
using student centered teaching methods and techniques. Universal Journal of
Educa onal Research. 7(4). DOI:10.13189/ujer.2019.070427
Bergman, R. (2004). Caring for the ethical ideal: Nel Noddings on moral educa on. Journal of
Moral Educa on. 33(2).
Bingham, A. (1995). Exploring the mul age classroom. Stenhouse Publishers.
Black, N. (2022). Eﬀects of a nontradi onal mul -age learning environment on academic and
social-emo onal learning: a case study. Hamline University.
Bri sh Columbia. (2024). B.C. Curriculum: curriculum building student success. h ps://
curriculum.gov.bc.ca
Christensen, L. (1992). Transla ng whole language child-centered teaching theory into
prac ce for preservice and ﬁrst-year teachers or “But…what does it look like in the
classroom?!” Texas A & M University
Elbaz, M.M., (2023). Placed-based educa on: community as a mul disciplinary learning
environment. Port Said Journal of Educa onal Research (PSJER), 2(1), 59-74. DOI:
10.21608/PSJER.2023.178248.1009
Gonzales, W.D.O. (2014). The teaching of Afro-Asian Literature: A comparison between the
Nonconven onal Learner-Centered and the Conven onal Teacher-Centered
Approaches. TESOL Interna onal Journal. 9(2). ISSN2094-3938.
Iqbal, L., Kapoor, T., Park, R. & Singh, G. (2019). Place-based learning (PBL) at Riley Park: An
outdoor educa onal tool for BC schools. Li le Mountain Neighbourhood House/ UBC

38
Environmental Sciences.
Main, P. (2023). John Dewey’s theory – How have John Dewey’s theories of learning shaped
educa onal reform and classroom prac ce? h ps://www.structurallearning.com
/post/john-deweys-theory
Marshall, C. (2017). Montessori educa on: a review of the evidence base. npj Science of
Learning, 2:11. h ps://doi:10.1038/s41539-017-0012-7
Messer, B. (2000). Literacy in the mul age classroom: A review of the research. Graduate
Research Papers. 1188. h ps://scholarworks.uni.edu/grp/1188
Naimanova, D., Lebedeva, L., Akpayeva, A., Astambayaeva, Z., Ryabova, E., & Yessenova, K.
(2023). Inves ga on of primary teachers’ student-centered teaching and technology
integra on competencies. Interna onal Journal of Educa on in Mathema cs, Science,
and Technology (IJEMST), 11(6), 1386-1404. h ps://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.3681
Place-based Educa on Evalua on Collabora ve. 2010. The beneﬁts of place-based educa on: A
report from the place-based educa on evalua on collabora ve (Second Edi on).
Retrieved (May 2024) from h p:// nyurl.com/PEECBrochure
Ronksley-Pavia, M., Barton, G.M., & Pendergast, D. (2019). Mul age educa on: An explora on
of advantages and disadvantages through a systema c review of the literature.
Australian Journal of Teacher Educa on. 44(5).
h ps://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v44n5.2
Rosenbusch, M. H., (1985). Teaching methodology: A child-centered approach. Department
of Foreign Languages and Literatures. Iowa State University.
Rowland, J.L. (1999). Comparing mul age and looping classrooms. Master’s Thesis. University

39
of Dayton.
Sikander, A. (2015). John Dewey and his philosophy of educa on. Journal of Educa on and
Educa onal Development. 2(2). 191-201.
Sobel, D. (2013). Place-based educa on: connec ng classrooms and communi es. The Orion
Society.
Song, R., Spradlin, T.E, & Plucker, J.A. (2009). The advantages and disadvantages of mul age
classrooms in the era of NCLB accountability. Educa on Policy Brief: Center for
Evalua on & Educa on Policy. 7(1).
Smith, M.K. (2004, 2020). Nel Noddings, the ethics of care and educa on. The educa on of
pedagogy and informal educa on. h ps://infed.org/mobi/nel-noddings-the-ethics-ofcare-and-educa on.
Yemini, M., Engel, L., Simon, A. (2023). Place-based educa on – a systema c review of
literature. Educa onal Review. h ps://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2023.2192618