Green Playground

For our Participatory Action Research on the Green Playground and ACES Vietnam model, we conducted the final phase of data collection, aiming to investigate the stakeholders’ evaluation of the use of the Green Playground and their suggestions for improvement. The major data sources included (i) interviews with Heads of Nguyen Tat Thanh School and Hoa Binh College of Education (n=2); (ii) surveys with primary and secondary school teachers (n=40); and (iii) surveys with Y8-9 students (n=80). It was a pity that many of the students were doing a mock test to prepare for their school leaving examination, so our response rates dropped compared to the other 3 previous phases.

Regarding the junior secondary students, Y6 (n=26), we organised a Playful activity which allowed them to reflect on their use of the Green Playground. They worked in 5 groups, created a poster and delivered a presentation on how they enjoyed playing on the playground, what they liked playing most, what they think they should do to maintain their playground and what they expected more from the playground.

Then the students were instructed to co-design a STEM product on the playground. They worked together in the same group, seeking frugal materials needed to make a water sanitisation container, a desalination device and a droplet/fog collector. This activity took place in about 30 minutes, after which the students came back to their classroom for a focus group interview (n=6, random sampling). The students showed a positive attitude towards the Green Playground, and they would like to maintain the playground at its best condition. However, they also wished to experience more learning activities on the playground when they were free from their exams and exam preparation.

One major part of our site visit was working with our ACES Ambassadors (n=9) who have collaborated with ACES Vietnam since the beginning of the project through participating in a series of training workshops. The objectives of our meeting were to reinforce the principles of frugal aspects through play and investigate teachers’ perceptions and practices of frugal education. First, we re-introduced Design Thinking and gave specific examples of how Design Thinking could be employed in creating an educational activity/design (e.g. making a water sanitisation container, a desalination device or a droplet/fog collector).

Following this, the teachers were divided into three groups, working towards a solution related to the theme of Clean Water and Sanitation (SDG 6). They had to figure out the context (e.g. related problems), empathy (e.g. learner characteristics) and a possible design (e.g. materials needed and procedure), then conduct a prototype, test and final pitch.

During the activity, the ACES team members served as students and mentors, making critical questions to challenge each group. By iteratively and repetitively reflecting on their objectives, the learning outcomes and the Design Thinking steps, the teachers had opportunities to improve the design for a better final product. After final pitching the design, the teachers worked together again and wrapped up some important lessons about the feasibility of the design in their teaching and suggestions for improvement.