Developing children’s connection with nature

(1)

Master’s thesis 60 ECTS

Social-ecological Resilience for Sustainable Development Masters Programme 2015/17

Developing children’s connection with nature

Exploring pedagogically designed nature routines in Swedish

outdoors preschools

Ulrika Svane

Supervisor: Prof. Cecilia Lundholm

Co-supervisor: Ph.D. student Matteo Giusti

(2)

There was a child went forth every day And the first object he looked upon, that object he became The early lilacs became part of this child And the song of the phoebe-bird

-Walt Whitman

Front page: Illustration by Ulrika Svane

(3)

Acknowledgements

Very warm thank you to my supervisors, Cecilia Lundholm and Matteo Giusti, for your valuable guidance throughout this thesis project. I have learned much from our academic discussions during this process, so I want to thank both of you for your engagement.

Many, many thanks to all the participating pedagogues and their colleagues, who welcomed me warmly to their preschools, and took the time to share their experiences and expertise with a great deal of enthusiasm. You have deeply inspired me.

Last but not least, the warmest thank you to my amazing family for your infinite support and encouragement throughout this process.

(6)

Abstract

There are increased ‘calls to reconnect humanity with the biosphere’ to respond to the current environmental crisis. The formative potential of nature experiences for individual’s development of connectedness with nature therefore requires attention.

Specifically, connecting children with nature through nature experiences could be a leverage point for sustainable development. This thesis explores the temporal dimension of nature experiences, i.e. nature routines, for young children from a social- ecological systems perspective. The views of experienced pedagogues in Swedish outdoors preschools are addressed. The results show that affective connectedness with nature develops in four general phases: being comfortable in nature, enjoy being in nature, caring for nature and oneness with nature, while experiential and cognitive connectedness with nature develop gradually. There is a progression in the pedagogically designed nature routines during the time at the preschool, as pedagogues facilitate relevant learning situations in nature to support the on-going development of children’s connectedness with nature. Nature routines are understood as generating enculturation on how to be and behave in nature. Furthermore, pedagogues’ functional classification of nature places highlights the pedagogical values of varying natural environments and biotopes near the preschool. Implications for urban planning could therefore be investigated further. Future research could also address the relevance of nature routines and the phases of affective connectedness with nature for other age groups.

For a summary in Swedish, see Appendix 1.

(7)

1 Introduction

As a response to the on-going environmental crisis, there are calls to ‘reconnect humanity with the biosphere’ (Folke et al. 2011). At the individual level, the relationship a person holds with nature can be understood as connectedness with nature (CWN), an: “awareness of the interrelatedness between one’s self and the rest of nature” (Zylstra et al. 2014:119). CWN has been shown to motivate various environmentally responsible behaviours (Gifford 2014, Zylstra et al. 2014), and a lifelong commitment to environmental protection (Chawla 1998, 2007). Therefore, it is not surprising that CWN is considered a deep leverage point towards sustainability transformation (Abson et al. 2016).

People’s direct interactions with nature are diminishing in modern societies.

Especially children are increasingly alienated from nature due to e.g. safety concerns and issues of liability (Davis 1998, O’Brien and Murray 2007). This has been termed an ‘extinction of experiences’ (Miller 2005, Soga and Gaston 2016). Experiences in nature are an important predictor for CWN (e.g. Kals et al. 1999), especially during childhood (Chawla 1998, 2007, Miller 2005, Moore 2014). Giusti and colleagues (2014) showed that young children’s cognitive awareness of and affective affinity with nature is related to the degree of persistent exposure to natural environments. The degree of accessibility to green areas from preschools in Stockholm correlated with the preschool children’s affinity with the biosphere (Giusti et al. 2014).

It therefore seems worth looking into the temporal dimension of nature experiences, hence nature routines. Nature routines are “recurring experiences of nature that are situated in the everyday habitat” (Giusti 2016:9). Thus, it is safe to assume that nature routines during childhood can be considered a leverage point for nurturing individuals’

connectedness with nature. This thesis therefore explores an environmental education (EE) program integrated in a preschool context, in which nature routines are pedagogically designed with the overarching aim to connect young children with nature.

(8)

1.1 Environmental education research

Conventional EE research and practice has focused on individual behavioural change (Stevenson et al. 2013) based on a view of learning characterized by informing and instructing individuals with predetermined goals (Wals and Dillon 2013). This while many stresses the importance of affective affinity with nature for engaging in environmentally responsible behaviour (Kals et al. 1999, Mayer and Frantz 2004, Moore 2014, Zylstra et al. 2014). Repeated experiences in nature, in combination with mutually enthusiastic social relationships (mentors), are of importance in nurturing an interest for nature and an identity around nature (Bixler et al. 2002), as well as promoting environmentally responsible behaviour (Wells and Lekies 2006, Chawla 2007). Participation in activities in “wild” natural spaces seems to be especially formative (Wells and Lekies 2006).

Although children have been given increased attention in EE, research on pre- schoolers is scarce (Davis 2009). One example, however, is research on British Forest Schools, showing that young children who participate gain an understanding of the environment and knowledge about plants and animals (cognitive impacts), start to care for the environment and show respect for it (affective impacts), develop collaborative and communicative skills (interpersonal and social impacts), and show improved stamina, balance and physical skills (physical and behavioural impacts) (Dillon et al.

2005, O’Brien and Murray 2007). Yet, how the development of CWN can be supported through EE for young children requires more attention in research (Davis 2009). For example, the frequency and duration of nature experiences necessary to develop CWN has not been researched enough (Ernst and Theimer 2011).

1.2 Research gap

Given that there is a lack of research on nature routines and how they relate to development of CWN, I target the overlapping research gaps of EE for young children (Davis 2009), and how children’s CWN is formed (Ernst and Theimer 2011, Cheng and Monroe 2012, Restall and Conrad 2015). I address the perspectives of experienced outdoor preschool pedagogues¹ at Swedish I Ur och Skur (Eng. In rain and shine)

1Pedagogue (Swe. pedagog) is the term used within I ur och skur for all educators, regardless of their educational level (e.g. nursemaid, teacher, preschool teacher) (Westerlund et al. 2016). The general term for pre-school teachers in Swedish (förskolelärare) refers to a specific educational level.

(9)

preschools. The I Ur och Skur (IUS) pedagogical approach is based on experiential learning in nature and, broadly speaking, aims to contribute to sustainable development by connecting children with nature (Westerlund et al. 2016). Thus, this study bridges the gap between research and practice (Zylstra et al. 2014) by exploring a pedagogical approach where the CWN perspective is recognized.

1.3 Aim and research questions

The aim of this thesis is to explore how pedagogues at IUS preschools support development of children’s CWN through pedagogically designed nature routines.

More specifically, the thesis unravels pedagogues’ perspectives on 1) the pedagogically designed nature routines for preschool children (1-6 years old), and more importantly, 2) the progression of children’s development of CWN through these nature routines. Thus, the overarching research questions is:

(i) What is the progression of the children’s development of CWN, as described by the pedagogues?

In order to enable this investigation, I also ask:

(ii) How are nature experiences designed, facilitated and routinized by the pedagogues, to develop children’s CWN at IUS preschools?

(10)

2 Theoretical framework

To investigate how children’s development of CWN is supported through nature routines, I apply a social-ecological system perspective. Social-ecological systems are:

“linked systems of humans and nature” (Walker and Salt 2006:164). The social- ecological system at study is comprised of three levels (figure 1): The first level is the individual child and his/her relationship with nature over time. To address this, I draw from existing literature on CWN. The second level is the social context, including peers, pedagogues and their pedagogical practice. I apply a situated learning lens to address this. The third level is the natural environment. To highlight pedagogues’

views on the functional and developmental aspects of the nature places they visit, I address how an individual and the environment is linked through affordances. I briefly present the tenets of CWN, situated learning, and affordances in the section below.

Figure 1: Theoretical framework of the study including the social-ecological system components. The study falls within environmental education research. Connectedness with nature theory is used to discuss the pedagogues’ perspectives on children’s individual relationships with nature and how it develops. Situated learning theory is applied to address the pedagogues’ perspective on the social context in which CWN development takes place. Affordance theory is used to address the relation between children and the natural environment.

(11)

2.1 Connectedness with nature

Broadly defined, CWN refers to an individual’s relationship with nature, and the degree of inclusion of nature within their identity (Schultz et al. 2004, Zylstra et al.

2014, Restall and Conrad 2015). The concept of CWN is multifaceted and stems from research on human-nature relations in several fields (Zylstra et al. 2014). Thus, a comprehensive outline goes beyond the scope of this study.

Cognitive (e.g. knowledge and perception of nature), affective (e.g. feelings towards nature) and behavioural or experiential (e.g. experiences and actions in and for nature) dimensions have been explored in research on CWN, given varying degrees of relative significance (Ernst and Theimer 2011, Zylstra et al. 2014). Zylstra and colleagues (2014) highlight the interrelatedness between these dimensions and provides the following definition:

“Connectedness with nature is […] a stable state of consciousness comprising symbiotic cognitive, affective, and experiential traits that reflect, through consistent attitudes and behaviors, a sustained awareness of the interrelatedness between one’s self and the rest of nature” (Zylstra et al. 2014:119).

The above definition emphasizes that CWN is similar to other personal traits in that once it is established, it seems stable over time. In this thesis, similar to Zylstra and colleagues (2014), the third dimension of CWN is understood as experiential, involving what an individual experiences in nature. Hence, behaviour, such as engagement in nature conservation, is considered an outcome of cognitive, affective and experiential CWN. For example Nisbet and colleagues (2009) suggests that the experiential dimension “reflects a physical familiarity with the natural world, the level of comfort with and desire to be out in nature.” (Nisbet et al. 2009:725).

There are several methods to measure different aspects of CWN and some are developed for children (Zylstra et al. 2014). Cheng and Monroe (2010) developed the Connection to Nature Index (CNI), measuring CWN for children age 8-12 through four elements of CWN: enjoyment of nature, empathy for creatures, sense of oneness and sense of responsibility. They found that children who scored high in CNI were more likely to want to spend time in nature and engage in environmentally friendly behaviour, and that nature experiences are important for development of CWN (Cheng and Monroe 2010).

(12)

In this thesis, CWN is used to discuss pedagogues’ views on how children develop a relationship with nature, comprising affective, experiential and cognitive CWN.

2.2 Situated learning

Direct experiences with nature are central for development of CWN (Kals et al. 1999).

Indeed, Chawla (2007) argues that first-hand experiences with nature have much higher formative potential than learning about nature from others representations and accounts of it. Direct experiences allow learning by acting in a real-world context, where the process of forming a personal relationship with nature involves, not only the mind, but also the whole body (Chawla 2007). Therefore, as Zylstra and colleagues (2014) argue: “experiences in nature may also facilitate deeper cognitive understanding of information learned.” (Zylstra et al. 2014:125).

Facilitating nature experiences can therefore be seen as central to supporting development of CWN. This motivates the use of situated learning theory in this study.

I use elements of this theory to discuss pedagogues’ accounts of CWN development, as well as the socio-cultural context in which this development takes place. Situated learning theory argues: “that knowledge, thinking, and learning are situated (or located) in experience.“ (Durning and Artino 2011:188), and that the learner:

“[through exploration] construct understanding rather than being taught specific knowledge” (Choi and Hannafin 1996:67). Thus, situated learning does not place an emphasis on transfer or acquisition of abstract and decontextualized knowledge (Brown et al. 1989). Rather, learning is understood as a process of creating personal meanings (Lave and Wenger 1991), situated in authentic activities, hence in experiences (Brown et al. 1989, Barab and Roth 2006).

Learning is understood as a process through which a person gradually becomes a member in the socio-cultural practices of a certain group (Lave and Wenger 1991, Durning and Artino 2011). Thereby, he/she is increasingly able to participate and act in the real-world situations relevant for that group (Barab and Roth 2006). Choi and Hannfin (1996) state: “In situated learning environments, students are provided support to facilitate personal constructions of meaning about the world they experience” (Choi and Hannafin 1996:61). Hence, the role of a teacher in situated

(13)

learning is to facilitate learning situations and be interactive in the learning process (Choi and Hannfin 1996).

From a situated learning perspective, learning can be seen as related to enculturation (Brown et al 1989); e.g. as children gradually learn and imitate the behaviour of a social group, they adopt the culture and norms of that same group. The practices of the group are understood as authentic learning activities (Brown et al. 1989). This perspective therefore highlights the importance of authenticity in learning activities (Brown et al. 1989, Choi and Hannafin 1996). It can be said that learning emerges from situations, through interrelated processes between the individual and the social and environmental context. In other words, learning is situated within a context where evolving interactions between the learners, teachers and the environment is key (Durning and Artino 2011). This relates back to the importance of direct experiences and formative social relations to the development of CWN. As Louise Chawla (2007) puts it:

“People around a child foster a bond with nature not only by giving the child freedom to move about and engage autonomously with natural areas, but also by their own example.

What they need to do, it appears, is to set an example of noticing nature in an appreciative way. By the direction and quality of their attention, they communicate nature’s value and promote the child’s interest in this world too.” (Chawla 2007:157).

Thus, I use elements of situated learning as a theoretical lens in this thesis, to analyse pedagogues’ perspectives on the social context for learning, and to highlight how they facilitate situations in which learning and development can take place trough direct experiences.

2.3 Affordances

Affordances are “relations between abilities to perceive and act and features of the environment” (Chemero 2009:150). The theory of affordances, as developed by Gibson, defines what an environment affords, or offers, an organism (Gibson 1979). In a certain situation in time and space, affordances are the relation between an individual’s ability to perceive and actualize actions afforded by the environmental features (Chemero 2003). Actualized affordances can therefore be studied in terms of observable behaviour of an individual or trough self-report (Kyttä 2004).

(14)

The approach allows for functional classification of environments or objects based on what they afford an individual (Heft 1988). For example, a five-year-old child might perceive a rock as climbable, i.e. it affords the activity of climbing to him or her, while a younger child might not have the physique, experience and ability to perceive or actualize that affordance. As Heft (1988) states: “environments, considered from a functional perspective, have a developmental dimension.“ (Heft 1988:37). Thus, as an individual grows, develops, or acquires new abilities, the affordances can change.

Consequently, affordances are dynamic, not least for young developing children.

The influence of perceived restrictions and permissions by the socio-cultural context on affordances is important, especially for young children who are under adult supervision and care (Kyttä 2004, 2006). For example, Moore (2014) argues that a child’s territorial range expands as the child grows and develops and ventures further from the initial territory. The engagement with the setting also deepens as affordances are actualized during repeated visits, as he or she discovers and masters new activities.

In this process, “the experiences become embodied as skills and understandings of the world that support ever-deepening feelings and relationships between child and surroundings.” (Moore 2014:24).

In the thesis, affordances provide a theoretical lens from which I discuss the pedagogues’ descriptions of how children interact with the environmental features of the places they visit in nature.

(15)

3 I Ur och Skur description

3.1 History of I Ur och Skur

The first IUS preschool was founded in Stockholm in 1983. Two preschool teachers, Susanne Drougge and Siw Linde, had a vision to establish a preschool based on the pedagogical approach for children’s outdoor experiences developed by Friluftsfrämjandet. Today, there are over 200 such preschools in Sweden (webpage:

Friluftsfrämjandet 2016), and about 50 of them are located in the Stockholm area (Personal contact, Friluftsfrämjandet), see in figure 2. The pedagogical approach of IUS is now also used in Finland, Russia and Japan (Westerlund et al. 2016), as well as in a number of Swedish elementary schools (Personal contact, Friluftsfrämjandet).

Figure 2: Map showing the location of IUS preschools in Stockholm.

(16)

3.2 Goals and pedagogical approach

IUS has an outdoor-focused pedagogical approach and provide children with learning in nature throughout all seasons. Their long-term goal is to contribute to sustainable development through increased environmental awareness (Westerlund et al. 2016).

The pedagogy of IUS follows the national curriculum, and moreover aims: “that […]

each child:

• Develops an interest for and knowledge about nature, and develop a feeling for nature (Swe. “naturkänsla”)

• Develops knowledge about a sustainable lifestyle

• Develops knowledge about and acts in accordance with the right of public access (Swe. “Allemansrätten”)

• Are provided with support and stimulation throughout their development by being in nature

• Are provided with opportunities for movement and a sense of community in an enjoyable way in nature

• Are given the basis for a lifelong interest in outdoor life”

(Westerlund et al. 2016:9²).

The Right of public access is: “a unique right to roam freely in the countryside”, on the condition not to ’disturb and destroy nature‘ (webpage: Swedish EPA). The pedagogy applies experiential learning, and learning through nature play and outdoor life. Another aspect of the pedagogy is providing the children with a variety of ways of expression, such as physical movement, drama, music, and arts and craft, related to the seasons, to nature and the materials provided there (Westerlund et al. 2016).

There are three stages for preschool children within the pedagogy. Each step is represented by a character, which is used as a pedagogical tool, see appendix 2. The youngest ones (approx. 1-2 years old) are called skogsknoppar or knoppar (Eng. forest buds). The middle children (approx. 3-4 years old) are called skogsknyttar or knyttar (Eng. roughly forest toffels), and the oldest ones (approx. 4-6 years old) are called skogsmullar or mullar after the fictional character Skogsmulle (Westerlund et al.

2016). The Swedish names for the three pedagogical steps are used consistently throughout the thesis.

2Translated to English by the author.

(17)

3.3 Previous research on I Ur och Skur

Only a few research studies are made on IUS. Grahn and colleagues (1997) evaluated children’s play, motoric skills and attention span in relation to their everyday outdoor environment. Children at an IUS preschool scored significantly higher compared to a traditional preschool. Moreover, systematic observations of the children’s play showed that the play at the IUS preschool was more varied and imaginative (Grahn et al.

1997).

More recently, Änggård (2010, 2012) studied how nature places are used and presented to the children (Änggård 2010), and how places are given identity (Änggård 2012) at an IUS preschool. Nature is used as a classroom, were children learn about nature, a home for everyday routines like eating, sleeping and playing, and a fairyland with enchanted animals and figures (Änggård 2010). By regularly using the same nature places for certain activities, the places are given identity and symbolic meaning (Änggård 2012).

(18)

4 Methods

This thesis is an explorative study that addresses the width, richness and different approaches of IUS as described by the pedagogues, it is not aimed to evaluate or compare preschools or pedagogues.

4.1 Research design

To circumvent the feasibility of a longitudinal study, the pedagogically designed nature routines are investigated through pedagogues’ perspectives. They are mentors and facilitators in the social-ecological system, holding knowledge and insight about what constitutes children’s CWN, and how it develops over time. The methodological framework is presented in figure 3. In the next sections, the methods are presented and discussed.

Figure 3: Methodological framework. Prior participation in the on-going outdoor activities informed the interviews. The interview transcripts were coded using thematic analysis to answer the three research questions.

4.2 Data collection Selection method

I selected 15 preschools in the Stockholm region that had at least one highly experienced pedagogue to interview. I interviewed one pedagogue at each to provide a variety of pedagogues’ perspectives, not to compare, rather to complement and provide width. The selection was advised by a contact at Friluftsfrämjandet, who provided a list of preschools (N=30), which met the above-mentioned criterion.

Invitation to participate was initially sent out via email, and thereafter preschools were contacted via phone in an improvised order. The first to answer and show interest were selected. Thus, the sample was based on a convenience criterion (Patton 2002).

(19)

The pedagogues’ years of experience ranged roughly between 6 and 25 years (mean=17 years). Due to the general under-representation of male preschool teachers in Sweden, all are female. All have experience of working with different age groups and have completed the basic level of education in IUS pedagogy provided by Friluftsfrämjandet. There is variation among the pedagogues in terms of educational background and work positions, some are nursemaids, some are preschool teachers and a few are preschool managers. The educational background was not considered in the analysis or results, as it was assumed not to be of significance to their personal experience and expertise as IUS pedagogues.

Interview method

The interviews revolved around four main topics: connectedness with nature, progression in routinized nature experiences, nature experiences as pedagogical practice and assessment of nature routines. For a description of each topic, see table 1.

For the interview guidelines, see appendix 3.

Table 1: Description of the four interview topics.

Interview topic Description

Connectedness with nature This topic addresses the pedagogue’s views on children’s CWN.

Progression in routinized nature experiences

This topic focuses on the progression in nature routines, and children’s development of CWN, i.e. the temporal dimension of the system.

Nature experiences as a

pedagogical practice This topic addresses the pedagogically designed outdoor activities and the nature experiences embedded in them.

Assessment of nature routines

This topic addresses the pedagogues’ formal and informal assessments of nature routines and outdoor activities.

The interviews were semi-structured (Kvale 2007), held in Swedish and were audio recorded (approx. 45 min-1h 15 min). As suggested by Kvale (2007), interview questions were prepared for each topic. Questions were used flexibly, and elaborated on, or combined depending on the context of each interview, whilst still making sure each topic was covered. A pilot interview was made to test and improve the topics and questions.

When possible, I participated (approx.1-3 hours) in the on-going outdoor activities, prior to conducting an interview. This was not to collect data; rather, to inform the interviews as it allowed for clarification of terms used by the pedagogues (Marshall and Rossman 2005), and exemplification of certain aspects or situations. As I

(20)

participated before the interviews, I was careful not to discuss the interview topics with the pedagogues to avoid influencing their responses.

I transcribed all the interviews, applying the same procedure for translation between spoken and written language. The audio recording was re- listened to after transcription to check for accuracy. The transcripts are a word-for-word record of the interviews, but for confidentiality reasons, names of people and places are excluded (Kvale 2007). A description of symbols used in quotes is seen in box 1.

4.3 Data analysis Interview coding

The coding method was based on thematic analysis, and followed the six steps described by Braun and Clarke (2006). The aim was to provide a thorough and nuanced account of the data. A detailed overview of the coding steps can be seen in appendix 4.

After reading the transcripts to familiarize myself with the data, I created preliminary codes for key quotes across the entire dataset. I then identified themes by collecting codes into groups. Themes were defined by considering the prevalence throughout (1) each data item (interview transcript) and (2) the whole dataset, as well as the significance of in relation to the research questions (Braun and Clarke 2006). Thus, in some cases, a theme with relatively low prevalence, but a high significance was included in the results. This is stated in the result section. All themes and codes, with example quotes, can be seen in appendix 5. The transcripts were coded using the computer software ATLAS.ti (webpage: ATLAS.ti).

Box 1: The following symbols are used in quotes:

• Dash – The speaker is interrupting herself in the middle of a sentence.

• Three dots … A Pause.

• Three dots in square brackets […] A section of text has been removed to shorten the quote.

(21)

4.4 Ethical considerations

In line with ethical principles for research, I have maintained independence in the research and aspired to keep personal beliefs and opinions separate from my role as a researcher (webpage: ESPA).

An ethical review preceded the study and relevant measures were taken to ensure the anonymity and safety of the participating pedagogues. As suggested by Kvale (2007), briefings preceded the interviews, during which the pedagogues were introduced to the interview situation, informed about confidentiality and the aim of the study, and gave written consent to participate in accordance with ethical guidelines for research (webpage: ESPA). The consent form can be seen in appendix 6. A debriefing followed the interview, when the pedagogue could add things and ask questions (Kvale 2007).

4.5 Critical reflections

The interviews with practitioners are the sole source of empirical data. Rather than being a fixed set of rules, qualitative interviewing can be said to rest on the interviewers skill and knowledge of the subject matter (Kvale 2007). I have therefore strived to maintain a critical stance and make well-informed decisions, based on recommendations in the literature and previous interview experiences. The quality of the coding is also influenced by the interpretations, skills and language sensitivity of the researcher (Kvale 2007). I have therefore followed the steps of thematic analysis carefully and critically reviewed the coding to mitigate the risk of inadequate interpretations of the data.

It could be argued that interviewing engaged practitioners about their work risks conveying a biased image, as they might want to convey an over-positive image. To mitigate this, I have asked critical questions and requested examples to support their statements.

Furthermore, there are limitations to the knowledge that can be extracted from interviews. Interviews can be argued to only capture the conscious views of the respondents, which they put into spoken language. Therefore, participant observation methods were considered to triangulate interview data, however, it would have required a research design which included systematic observations, e.g. of a certain

(22)

activity over time, during different times of the year and with different age groups.

This would not have been feasible due to the time constraints of the study. However, as described above, single occasion participation was used as a way to prepare for the interviews.

(23)

5 Results

In this thesis, progression can be understood from two perspectives: first, in terms of how an individual child is progressing towards CWN, and second, how the pedagogically designed nature routines progresses to meet the needs and capabilities of children at different levels of CWN development. Thus, the results section is divided the following main parts: First, I address pedagogue’s perspectives on children’s progression towards their main objectives, which are related to CWN.

Second, I present pedagogues’ role in facilitating progressing nature routines, including how they select activities and places. I other words, how they work to achieve their objectives. Third, I give a brief overview of how the pedagogues evaluate the progress towards the objectives. Unless otherwise stated, the results presented below are representative for a majority of the respondents.

5.1 Progression towards the objectives

Three main objectives were identified in the pedagogues’ responses: developing a feeling for nature, practising outdoor life, and learning about nature. Figure 4 is a conceptual framework showing these main objectives and the progression towards them. The objectives are seen as interrelated: “it goes hand in hand, this whole chain of experiences, and curiosity, and a feeling for nature, the acquisition of knowledge.”

(Interview 15). The results are presented below organised into these three main objectives.

(24)

Figure 4: Conceptual framework showing the progression towards the three main objectives: developing a feeling for nature, practising outdoor life, and learning about nature. For a feeling for nature, the results suggest four major phases of development, while there is a gradual progression that differs between individuals for practicing outdoor life and learning about nature. Being comfortable in nature is a prerequisite for further progression (dotted orange line).

(25)

Developing a feeling for nature

Pedagogues have described four general phases in development of a feeling for nature:

comfort in nature, enjoyment in nature, caring for nature and oneness with nature:

“There is like a ladder […] Eh, feeling comfortable… firstly. And the next is to have fun.

[…] A feeling for nature is that you know nature, that you have it as a part of yourself.

That you… The forest is like a home.” (Interview 3).

The above summarizes three of the four phases as a developmental ladder.

Comfort in nature

According to the pedagogues, a prerequisite for a child to develop a feeling for nature is that he/she feels comfortable there, used here to mean a sense of being safe and confident. This can for example imply being able to satisfy your basic needs:

“If you have been going to a more traditional preschool… […] All of a sudden you are expected to go potty behind a tree, which you might not have done before. […] and lie down on a sleeping pad in the forest and listen to a story, that’s a bit… Can be a bit different and scary, I think.” (Interview 7).

Furthermore, becoming comfortable in nature is described as a process embedded in a social context involving both pedagogues and other children.

Enjoyment in nature

Enjoyment of being in nature includes being able to find fun things to do there. This feeling of enjoyment and ‘having fun’ can be manifested in different ways:

“So, for me, a feeling for nature is… Well, that I should think it is fun to be out in the forest. And if that means that it’s fun because I find things to explore, or discover there, or because I think it is fun to build a swing and swing on it, or sleep under a wind shelter, or… I don’t think that is very- Matters much.” (Interview 7).

Caring for nature

Caring for nature ranges from caring about animals or plants, to caring for the environment or the planet, as described by pedagogues. This dimension of a feeling for nature can be manifested both during childhood in a hands-on way, and later in life:

“You don’t rip off moss that has been growing for a hundred years. When you understand that you shouldn’t break the branches of trees because they will get damaged and won’t

(26)

grow as intended. That you don’t tear up the flowers that are endangered, because they might not grow any more.” (Interview 9).

“I want them to take that with them so that they […] care for nature and sustainable development and so on. That they are not- That it should be there for the coming generation.” (Interview 8).

Oneness with nature

A feeling for nature, once established, also seem to includes a sense of oneness with nature:

“Well, when you have gotten to the point where you actually have that [a feeling for nature], then you understand that you are part of nature’s cycles. That you… Well, understand that what I do to nature will affect me too.“ (Interview 1).

“[To feel that] you are part of something bigger.” (Interview 9).

Despite a relatively low prevalence in the data, I consider oneness with nature a dimension of a feeling for nature. It has been described as a long-term manifestation of a feeling for nature. Thus, it might not be of particularly high relevance for the studied age group, but still significant for unravelling the progression towards an individual relationship with nature.

Practising outdoor life

The second objective identified in pedagogues’ responses is practising outdoor life, see figure 4. As I will present next, children are stimulated to improve the following skills, they should: develop their agility, use nature’s resources, practise basic camping skills, and practise outdoors sports.

Developing agility

Developing children’s agility is described as an important aspect of the IUS nature routines. Agility is here understood as the ability to move around quickly and easily in natural environments:

“We deliberately work in a way so that the children should get to know their- I mean, develop their pattern of movement, their body, and be comfortable in that, what the body can do. That you get confidence in [your] agility.” (Interview 9).

(27)

This is described as the most striking difference between children with a few years at IUS and other children: “those who have been here [at the IUS preschool] the whole time, they are quicker and faster and… they move differently” (Interview 4).

The ability to move around in various natural environments provides the basis for many of the outdoor life activities, which I will describe next.

Practising camping skills

Children practise basic camping skills as part of the IUS-nature routines, e.g. sleeping under a wind shelter, or eating outdoors: “and that is also something to learn for the future, to be able to pack your lunch and go for an excursion” (Interview 12). As they get older, they practise more advanced camping skills. For example, children of about 4-6 years of age learn how to use knives to carve wood.

They also regularly observe the pedagogues in more advanced activities such as building wind shelters or tents, cooking outdoors, lighting and managing a fire:

“Then, when we go to Knytte [nature school for 3-4 year olds], we usually have a bit more of this, well, outdoor life. Yeah, like now when we ate- We lit a fire. […] If it is raining, we build wind shelters and it’s like, no problem, you just enjoy the forest.”

(Interview 13).

The pedagogues describe that their methods should be authentic and relevant for introducing the children to genuine camping skills: “we try to do it that way, to use outdoor life as our method as far as possible” (Interview 7).

Practising outdoor sports

The seasonal changes allow pedagogues to introduce and encourage children to practice outdoor sports, such as skiing, ice-skating and climbing. Thus, the children should be familiarized to a variety of activities related to outdoor life:

“It is practice that gives them that skill. […] With the skiing for example, they can go downhill a hundred timed and fall a hundred times. And the 101^st time, they stand the whole hill down.” (Interview 9).

Using natures resources

Pedagogues introduce children to how to use nature’s resources such as edible berries, plants and mushrooms. This concerns especially the older children of 3-6 years:

(28)

“And then we go out and pick lingonberries and make lingonberry jam. […] I have also bought some to add. But we go out anyway to pick them in order to learn that there are eatable things that you can make use of, and everyone becomes interested in that.”

(Interview 12).

This is done with the aim to inspire the children and show them natures resources so they may use them in the future.

Learning about nature

The third objective is learning about nature: Pedagogues strive to give the children some basic knowledge about species, ecology, and the Swedish Right of public access (Swe: Allemansrätten).

The pedagogues routinely use the proper names for species. Therefore, the children gradually learn the names of species and gain knowledge about trees, plants, insects and animals. At approximately 4-6 years of age, they can deepen their knowledge about certain species for which they express an interest.

The main aspects of ecological knowledge that pedagogues aim to teach are: cycles in nature, seasonal changes in nature, and food chains. The pedagogue’s interests, as well as the children’s interests generally determine what ecological knowledge is addressed. But the current season and situations of opportunity that arise also influence this: “in the autumn, we work with the seasonal cycle of leaves, for example.

[…][the leaves] have to go somewhere, so, what happens?” (Interview 12).

The pedagogues also aim to teach some basic information about the Right of public access. The rules and norms of the group while in nature is based on acting in accordance with the Right of public access: children learn early on that it is not acceptable to e.g. litter, or damage living animals and plants:

“When they are five years old we usually start talking, really, about the Right of public access and what the rules are and so on. But even from Knopp, when they are one to two years old it is about- They also learn about the Right of public access, but in a more practical way. […] We cannot break the branches, for example. Or, someone has littered here; we have to pick that up.” (Interview 13).

Next, I will present how the pedagogues work to achieve their objectives.

(29)

5.2 I Ur och Skur nature routines

Positive nature experiences are described as key for progression towards the objectives, and a prerequisite is that the basic needs of each child are met. Pedagogues therefore continually observe and respond to the children and select places and activities in accordance with their current interests and needs. Figure 5 is a conceptual model illustrating this.

Figure 5: Conceptual model of the role of the pedagogues. They observe and respond to the current condition of the child group and select places and activities in accordance to progress towards their objectives.

Next, I address the frequency and duration of nature experiences, how the pedagogues function as facilitators, how nature places are used as everyday environment, how nature activities are used as pedagogical tool, and how pedagogues evaluate the progress towards their objectives.

Frequency and duration

Due to the flexibility of the pedagogues’, illustrated in figure 5, there is often no set duration of the time spent in nature. Most pedagogues stated that, depending on the age group, season and weather, they spend about 2-3 half or full days a week in nature places. The other days are often spent in the preschool yard. This also depends on the quality of the preschool yard, and the distance from the preschool to the places in nature they visit; some have a forest right outside the preschool which means they can come and go often, while others need to walk or travel.

The pedagogue as facilitator

The pedagogues provide rich descriptions of their own roles, and their approaches and procedures when they are in nature with a group of children:

(30)

“We’re enthusiastic, we are present, all the time. […] We [pedagogues] also think that the forest and nature is exciting. […] I do think that they would miss out on a lot if they didn’t have engaged adults there. Because, in my opinion, that’s the difference between IUS and a traditional preschool.” (Interview 8).

To be curious. To… Participate on the level of the children, in their exploration. And…

To help them describe, or describe for them, so that they get new words and a feeling for what I’m feeling (Interview 15).

Pedagogues co-explore in nature with the children, and share their own interest for it.

Co-seeking knowledge is also considered important: “[older children], if they find butterflies, they might- […] Well, it’s probably a butterfly, let’s take out the books and have a look.” (Interview 7). As situations of opportunity arise, such as finding a dead animal that interests the children, the pedagogues adjust the plans for the day in accordance.

Pedagogues can be seen as role models for the children concerning attitudes towards-, and behaviour in, nature. This is amplified by using fictional characters as mediators, or a “second pedagogue”: “that is another dimension of the learning. It’s like third- [laughs] […] Another character that comes and tells them about something.”

(Interview 15).

The pedagogues also act as play leaders, engaging the children in play by initiating, enriching, elaborating on, or challenging the children's on-going nature play: “some find enough imagination to burst in nature, I mean, everything can be anything. But then, sometimes you have to join in and start up, and… Sort of, join in the play, the free play.” (Interview 12).

(31)

Nature places as everyday environment

Being in places in nature on a regular basis is a normal part of IUS preschool routines.

Children explore and return to several nature places with increasing level of challenge during their years at the preschool, see figure 6. This process is described in detail below, as well as the socio-spatial relationship between children and pedagogues in nature over time.

Figure 6: Conceptual model of the progression in nature places during the preschool years. The youngest children stay near the preschool, and as they get older, they visit varied nature places that offer new challenges, thus, a sense of adventure is maintained.

Selecting nature places

The places in nature are selected by balancing criteria such as distance, security considerations, and what activities the place offers. The youngest children stay near the pre-school, often in a nearby grove of trees: “for the Knoppar [1-2 year olds], the adventure can start right around the corner, because I've never been there before.”

(Interview 10).

Some pedagogues express an elaborate awareness of what activities a certain nature place has to offer. It can be environmental features, which afford particular movements, activities or invites to certain kinds of play or exploration:

“For example, in our Knytte place [for 3-4 year olds], there are a lot of possibilities for climbing, you can crawl under, you can sit and eat blueberries surrounded by blueberry plants, the terrain goes up and down, there are many pine tress you can sit under, like

(32)

tree houses. There are many sticks that you can build huts with and there is a great diversity.” (Interview 13).

As the children get older and can walk longer distances, they are introduced to more challenging nature places (see figure 6):

“This feeling that you have grown, and the world gets- To get away from the neighbourhood. And you get to step out and go down to the Knytte-meadow [nature place for 2-3 year olds]. […] And then, when you are Mulle [4-5 years old], you get to go all the way down to the creek of [name of a lake nearby]. […] They grow and the world grows with them.” (Interview 9).

These nature places are often also in contrasting biotopes, since they offer different pedagogical values related to pedagogues’ objectives. Figure 7 shows examples of environmental features and biotopes in different nature places and the offered activities stated by the pedagogues. More examples can be seen in appendix 7.

Figure 7: Conceptual model of the progression in nature places during the preschool years, including four examples of different biotopes (green striped circles) that offer certain activities. The bracketed numbers are references to the interview.

(33)

Exploring and returning to nature places

Exploring new places maintains the sense of adventure in nature. When exploring a nature place, the children are faced with new challenges and activities offered by the place. Utilizing a new nature place takes longer for young children or children that are unfamiliar with being in nature:

“[In a new place], you have to sort of start over, from this first phase [i.e. getting comfortable]. […] If they are five years old, well then they get comfortable rather quickly. Because the younger they are, the longer time it takes for them to get comfortable in this new place.” (Interview 13).

Well… I can see that, first; you have to get accustomed to nature somehow, explore and discover, before you can play (Interview 8).

The pedagogues sometimes guide or enrich the exploration by initiating activities or games. Furthermore, the children inspire each other to challenge themselves: “And then someone starts to climb there […] And they look at each other, what are they doing? I want to try that too.” (Interview 12).

Nature places have names, such as elk island, the bear cave, or blueberry mountain.

Certain activities recur in the same places, for example a child can return to trying to climb a certain tree until he/she manages to. Returning also enables routines, recurring nature play, and a sense of comfort: “The more the children know what to do, when to do it, with who, how long and so on, that’s when they get comfortable.” (Interview 7).

Socio-spatial relationship

Nature places are not fenced, but have ‘invisible boundaries’. The socio-spatial relationship between the child and the pedagogue change over time as the child becomes more motoric, comfortable and explorative. Young children, and children that are unfamiliar to nature often stay close to the pedagogue, or the centre of the nature place. As they get comfortable, they venture further and become more independent in their exploration of the nature place, and might even stay away from the pedagogue:

“But then when they are Knytte [3-4 years old], they start to get curious about what is over there too. So you can give them some small tasks, find a rock that is as large as your hand, and then they run of and come back again And I am big enough to go explore a bit on my own. It’s a bit scary and a bit nervous, but I can handle it.” (Interview 10).

(34)

“With the young ones, it's about sitting down with them and being very much on the ground. […] When they get older, they don’t want you to be with them as much. They usually think that it is al lot of fun if you join in their play, but sometimes it’s more like, I want to play without you. If you get a bit too close, [they’ll ask] What are you doing?”

(Interview 12).

The progression in the socio-spatial relationship is illustrated in figure 8.

Figure 8: Illustration of the progression of socio-spatial relationship between pedagogue and child, as described by pedagogues. Left: The younger child stays near the pedagogue and is given a task and ventures as far as he/she dares from the safe spot - the pedagogue. Right: The older children are comfortable in the place (dotted circle). They move around freely and sometimes seek independence from the pedagogue.

Nature activities as pedagogical tool

Pedagogues and children perform activities in nature categorized as nature school, nature play, rituals and arts and craft. Nature activities often revolve around a certain theme, which bridges several activities: “and then you talk about ants and what they eat, you sing a song about ants, maybe dramatize something related to ants […] do some ant-related arts and craft” (Interview 11).

The nature school differs between age groups but generally revolves around a certain theme and involves activities with more or less specific objectives. Table 2 on the next page shows one representative example for each age group.

(35)

Table 2: Example quotes with descriptions of nature school for each age group.

Age group

Nature school theme

Example quote Knopp

(1-2 year olds)

Animals in

winter Like our youngest ones, Knopp [1-2 years old], with them, we only go to our- The other side of the yard, I mean our forest yard. And we do the same routines, the same songs; we might change a [toy] animal that comes to visit every time. Now we have put the spider to winter sleep, and we have put the lay bug to bed, and we have we have put the hedgehog to bed. So I think that we build the foundation right form the start. (Interview 6).

Knytte (3-4 year olds)

Collect and

study bugs When the Knytte child turns four […] when all the bugs come alive, how exciting it is to lift a rock and have a look. And then we have loups with us, and we collect [the bugs], put them back and things like that.

Maybe even play sometimes that they build tiny houses for the bugs, and take care of them. […] But it’s not like we have classes or something like that, but you use the right… right name (interview 5).

Mulle (4-6 year olds)

Cycles in nature But, like with the Mulle children [4-6 years old] […] Well, then we get talking about chlorophyll and things like that […]. And then we show the process, from bud, to leaf and to the colour red and [coughs]…

When they turn to soil, and these decomposers, who are they? Then we go to a tree stump and see if we might find some decomposers. And how it feels- Because if all tree stumps would still be here, there wouldn’t be any- Well, we talk a lot about things like that [Interview 12).

Free play in nature is described as having many benefits to play at the preschool, such as being more imaginative, inclusive and gender neutral. Places and objects in nature are transformed in play to be different things, in contrast to playing indoors: “if you only ever play cars with [toy] cars, then it might be difficult to imagine that this pinecone is a car. [And that this] tree is a pirate ship, but the next time it’s actually a store.” (Interview 7). Nature play can be understood as related to “having fun” in nature, thus enjoyment in nature. It is also described as highly valuable for development of social skills, which is a general goal for all Swedish preschools.

Rituals function as social practices for the child group in nature, such as songs, chants, story telling, simple meditation, and recurring stops to and from the nature places.

These rituals promote comfort and predictability for the children: “we have some comforting things that we bring. The Mulle song, the Mulle sign that is hung [in a tree]. […] And that way, you can often get the ones that are a bit uncomfortable to join in.” (Interview 6).

(36)

5.3 Evaluation

There is no formal evaluation on the progression towards the objectives, however, pedagogues have expressed that they routinely make informal evaluations based on the feedback from the children. They observe the children, what they say, how they act and what they do, thus noting their progression in e.g. agility, skills, or acquisition of knowledge, and discussing it among the preschool staff:

“[She is] still talking about how, I remember when I couldn’t get up on that rock, and…

[…]They can tell you about this flow. How it feels to finally get up on the largest rock.”

(Interview 3).

“Because then they can say, after a long time, if you get talking, well, those are ants and they do this, and… In winter, they crawl down under the anthill and stay close together, in a lump. I remember that we learned that. Thinks like that. So you get some- Some proof that, wow, they really do remember this after a year.” (Interview 8).

“So many of them [the parents] had reflected about the children, that they just spontaneously… Pick up pieces of glass or litter and that they would talk about how it’s not allowed to, you know, litter, because the animals can get hurt and they don’t have band aids, you know.” (Interview 10).

(37)

6 Discussion

In this thesis, explore an EE programme integrated in a preschool context. I investigate 1) how nature routines are designed, facilitated and routinized to support CWN development in young children, and 2) the progression in development of children’s CWN though nature routines.

First in this section, I discuss pedagogues’ objectives and the progressions towards them in relation to CWN theory and research. Second, I turn to the pedagogues’ ways of supporting development of CWN in relation to situated learning theory. Third, I discuss pedagogues’ views on the environmental context of nature routines in relation to affordance theory. Fourth, I sum up and address the limitations of the study and discuss future directions.

6.1 Progression of children’s CWN

Progression of children’s CWN is addressed by discussing pedagogues’ objectives in relation to the three dimensions of CWN. The objectives involve three components, which overlap with the three dimensions of CWN: developing a feeling for nature (affective and experiential CWN), practising outdoor life (experiential CWN), and learning about nature (cognitive CWN). Thus, there is alignment between the objectives and the dimensions of CWN. The results also highlight the development of physical skills (i.e. agility), similar to research on British forest schools (Dillon et al.

2005, O’Brien and Murray 2007). Development of social skills, however, is part of overall preschool objectives in Sweden and is not highlighted by pedagogues as essential for development of CWN. It is rather understood as an interrelated developmental process.

The objectives are described as interconnected: e.g. to engage in activities in nature and gain knowledge, a child needs to have reached a certain level of agility and comfort within that social and environmental context. Zylstra and colleagues (2014) have previously highlighted the interrelatedness between affective, experiential, and cognitive dimensions of CWN. This implies that the progression of CWN can include multiple interconnected processes that play out over time.

Developing children’s connection with nature