This investigation explores the meanings primary school teachers who apply outdoor learning and teaching methods associate withthe places that encompass their teaching practices. A symbolic interactionist framework coupled with a social constructionistorientation was employed to analyze data collected from semi-structured interviews and photo elicitation techniques. The findingsillustrated that meaning ascribed to place derived from the interactional processes between the study’s respondents and thephysical setting within which educational interventions occurred. The nature of these interactions also appeared to be highlyinfluenced by the social worlds in which informants participated and their featured social processes. The results elucidated that theattribution of meaning to learning landscapes was impacted by school administrational factors, institutionalized school practices,the respondents’ university education and the perspectives they held about outdoor teaching and learning. Findings from thisenquiry make progress towards gaining an insight into the social construction of meanings ascribed to outdoor learningenvironments. Additionally, they contribute to a theoretical discussion regarding the impact of social contexts encompassingteaching and learning interventions on the educational potential of outdoor places.

This study has been conducted in the context of the master program in Outdoor Environmental Education and Outdoor Life, of Linköping University. It aspires to investigate a specific part of outdoor environments: the schoolyards. Particularly, the aim of the study is to investigate how the use of the school grounds as an educational resource is influenced by their environments -rural or urban. The research compares the school communities’ (principals’, teachers’ and students’) perceptions about the use of their school grounds during the educational process. The research sample consists of 10 Swedish elementary schools, from which the five are in rural and five are in urban environments. The participants are in total 10 principals, 51 teachers and 295 students. Alongside, an observation recorded in a list and photographs enhance the comparison between the rural and urban schools’ infrastructures. From the 1268 photos taken, a selection is included in the study and constitutes the observation part. The study negotiates four controversial issues about school grounds’ capacities: space or place; good or bad; rural or urban; grounds of a school or grounds of a curriculum. The results, after all, reject the contradictions and the sections become respectively: a place for all seasons; neither good nor bad, just unique! ; Ideality stands for ideas; grounds for cooperation. It also becomes visible that even though the analysis of the responses confirms that the urban teachers hold the stereotypical idea that there are differences between rural and urban environments; the infrastructures of both environments do not appear different. However, the teachers’ different opinions and beliefs have a significant impact on the students’ responses. Specifically, significant differences are reported by students which align with the teachers’ differences. The rural and urban principals do not report significant differences, and in the great majority their opinions also align with their teachers’ opinions. Finally, a model which is unfolded through this study has central role, namely the schoolyard circle. This model aims to facilitate a process that I introduce as schoolisization, in which school grounds are used to extend the stereotypical learning environment by adapting the curriculum to a school’s needs. Consequently, the schoolyards’ transformation from a space to our place can be finally proved an outdoor education approach that “bridges contradictions” and promises better educational results.