UNDERSTANDING NATURE PLAY IN THE
CONTEXT OF BUSH KINDERS AND THE
EARLY YEARS OF PRIMARY SCHOOL:
WHAT’S IT ALL ABOUT?
Dr Sue Elliott, University of New England
Armidale, NSW
OVERVIEW
A. Introducing nature play: A global movement
B. Linking to Australian contexts and policies
Roundtable Discussions: Your stories
C. Exploring theory and pedagogy
Roundtable Discussions: Scenarios
D. Researching nature play: Two snapshots
• Thalgarrah Environmental Education Centre
• KU Ourimbah Preschool and Children’s Centre
Speed dating Discussions: What next for you?
E. Moving forward: Questions and resources
A. INTRODUCING NATURE PLAY:
A GLOBAL MOVEMENT
Nature play contexts…..
In summary…..
Nature play settings are physically characterised
by:
• Diverse sensory elements and landscapes e.g.
hills, flowers, water, dirt
• Loose materials for play e.g. logs, bark, leaves
• Risk and challenge e.g. balancing, climbing
• Novelty and change e.g. seasons, growth
• Local cultural and geographical relevance e.g.
Indigenous meanings, landmarks
But, nature play is more than physical
contexts……
• Sustained and repeated engagement with natural settings
• Child-led play based learning approaches
• Children viewed as capable and competent learners,
problem solvers and risk takers
• Communities of caring children, educators and families
• An all encompassing ethic of global sustainability
• Indigenous meanings and worldviews
• Theoretical underpinnings such as critical and post-
humanist perspectives
• Critical eco-pedagogies that question our ways of being in
natural settings
Researching the benefits
of nature play
• Increased confidence,
motivation and
concentration, increased
social, physical, imaginative
and language skills
• Deeper conceptual
understandings and respect
for the natural environment
(Gill, 2011; Fjortoft, 2004; Malone & Waite, 2016;
O’Brien & Murray, 2008; O’Brien, 2009)
• Families and wider
community attitudes
towards natural
places for play and
children’s risk
management can be
enhanced (Elliott & Chancellor, 2014; Knight, 2009)
• Teacher’s
understandings of and
relationships with the
children are deepened(Elliott & Chancellor, 2014)
• Sustained shared
thinking and more
frequent child-initiated
interactions with
teachers prompted by
the natural
environment and found
loose parts (Waters, 2012)
Outdoors in nature
offers unplanned,
unknown, unpredictable
encounters; these are
significant provocations
for learning (adapted from Waters, 2012)
Diverse nature play programs
Sooke School, Nature Kindergarten, Vancouver Island,
Canada
Saplings Outdoor Program, West Vancouver, Canada
Seattle Children’s Playgarden, USA
Kyoto Forest Preschool, Japan
Fussingo Nature Kindergarten, Denmark
Koiari Park Primary School, PNG
Yarralea St Preschool Bush Kinder, Victoria
Outdoor Connections: School holiday programs, NSW South
Coast (https://outdoorconnections.com.au/)
Kings Park, WA, Naturescape
Centennial Parklands, Wild Play, Sydney
B. LINKING TO AUSTRALIAN
CONTEXTS AND POLICIES
• Many forest preschool/bush kinder/nature playgroup
programs emerging, particularly in Victoria (~360) and
NSW (~100), some Forest Schools established too.
• Professional early childhood ‘bush kinder’ networks
established in Victoria (ECOLN) and NSW Early Years
Nature Connections Group, no school-based networks or
national association as yet.
• Early Years Bush Connections Training (Fran Hughes,
Randwick Campus, Sydney TAFE), plus independent and
UK training models.
.
Curriculum linksLinks to all the Early Years Learning Framework (DEEWR,
2009) and VEYLDF (Victorian DET, 2016) learning
outcomes:
OUTCOME 1: CHILDREN HAVE A STRONG SENSE OF
IDENTITY
OUTCOME 2: CHILDREN ARE CONNECTED WITH AND
CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR WORLD
OUTCOME 3: CHILDREN HAVE A STRONG SENSE OF
WELLBEING
OUTCOME 4: CHILDREN ARE CONFIDENT AND
INVOLVED LEARNERS
OUTCOME 5: CHILDREN ARE EFFECTIVE
COMMUNICATORS
The VEYLDF (Victorian DET, 2016) eight
Practice Principles can all be linked to
nature play programs:
• Reflective practice
• Partnerships with
families
• High expectations for
every child
• Respectful
relationships and
responsive engagement
think critically and
challenge norms
engage families in
different ways
promote agency and
challenge
demonstrate
respectful non-human
relationships too
The VEYLDF (Victorian DET, 2016) eight
Practice Principles can all be linked to
nature play programs (con’t):
• Equity and diversity
• Assessment for
learning and
development
• Integrated teaching
and learning
approaches
• Partnerships with
professionals.
promote equity for all
species
rethink assessment in
new contexts
respond to the context
and practice slow
pedagogy
create new
partnerships
Australian School Curriculum (ACARA, n.d)
General Learning Capabilities such as Creative
and Critical Thinking, Ethical Understanding and
Personal and Social Capability.
Key Learning Areas such as geography, science
health and physical education.
Cross Curriculum Priorities including sustainability
and Indigenous history and cultures.
Regulatory matters: Early childhood
Bush Kinders
The development of bush kinders reflects the mounting
body of evidence that outdoor activities such as exploring
natural environments, are beneficial to children and
contribute to improving children’s health and wellbeing.
In this regulatory fact sheet:
• Selecting the bush kinder site
• Planning for a bush kinder
• Delivering the program at the bush kinder site
• Further information
http://www.education.vic.gov.au/childhood/providers/re
gulation/Pages/bushkinders.aspx
McDonald’s Nature play programs?
• Nature play programs are socially constructed in cultural,
political, social and physical landscapes…. variations on a
theme and there is no one right way.
• In the UK nature play programs such as ‘forest school’
have become a commodity to be marketed and governed
by a Forest School Association and private training
providers that ensure qualifications, risk management,
specific skills etc (Leather, 2016)
We must be mindful of how nature play programs are
translated into local Australian contexts……
ROUNDTABLE
DISCUSSIONS:
YOUR STORIES
Reflect on your own nature play
experiences with children and
families….
What is your professional story in
nature play so far?
C. EXPLORING THEORY AND
PEDAGOGY
• Critical and post-humanist perspectives
• Pedagogies that question our ways of being in
natural settings
Critical theory perspective
Critical theory perspective
‘The new problem situation cannot be handled with
the old theoretical means’ (Habermas, 1989, p. 302)
Critical theory invites us to interrogate our values,
identify contradictions between theory and
practice, question power relationships and
promote ethically informed action.
A critical perspective invites educators to
question
• How have I come to do things this way in bush kinder?
• How have I come to understand nature relationships and sustainability this way?
• How many other ways are there to pedagogically engage and to construct sustainable worldviews?
• ‘Who’ benefits and ‘who’ is marginalised by the way I work in bush kinder?
• What theories shape my work, my ethical stance, which are useful and what other theories could I employ?
(adapted from MacNaughton, 2003)
Post-humanist perspective
Essentially from a post-humanist perspective…
‘the challenge is to think differently about
nature, as well as what it means
to be human’ (Taylor, 2013, p.66)
A typical
post-
humanist
perhaps?
http://www.sadandusele
ss.com/2013/03/old-
people-wearing-
vegetation/
An opportunity for educators to challenge
and reflect on…
• How we portray human/non-human
relationships?
• Do we see human needs as superseding the
needs of all other species?
• Can we question the anthropocentric view that
humans dominate/control nature as a resource?
• How can we practice a relational ethic with
human and non-humans species?
(Lloro-Bidart, 2016; Plumwood, 2003; Taylor, 2013)
Urgently thinking
critically and
differently is required
to move from the
Anthropocene
defined by human
impact on the Earth
to the Ecocene
…..and in the early
years we can do this
with children!
(Steffen, Crutzen & McNeill, 2007)
It’s about pedagogical change…..
Calls for change• Arlemalm-Hagser (2013) has argued a disjuncture
between promoting children’s stewardship and the need
for critical discussion about human relationships with
nature and children being vocal participants
• Kelly & White (2013, p. 38) in The Ngahere Project
advocate active pedagogical roles, seeing pedagogy as
problem-posing.
• Grogan (2014) suggests ECEfS is in the ‘shadows’ and
advocates more dynamic and proactive ECEfS
pedagogies.
• Taylor (2013, p.121-124) advocates new pedagogies
attending to children’s relational ethics, emplacement in
common worlds and collective inquiry.
ROUNDTABLE
DISCUSSIONS:
SCENARIOS
Read your scenario and share ideas
about how you might pedagogically
engage with children here?
What theories, ethics or worldviews
underpin your ideas?
D. RESEARCHING NATURE PLAY:
TWO SNAPSHOTS
Thalgarrah Environmental
Education Centre (TEEC) KU Ourimbah Preschool
and Children’s Centre
Acknowledgements
Thalgarrah Environmental
Education Centre (TEEC)
Research team:
• Dr Sue Elliott, Dr Nadya Rizk &
Dr Subhashni Taylor, University
of New England
• Dr Julie Kennelly and Matt
McKenzie Thalgarrah
Environmental Education
Centre
Funding:
UNE SoE Research Networks
STEM and eLearning
KU Ourimbah Preschool
and Children’s Centre
Research team:
• Rosanne Pugh,
Director/Teacher at KU
Ourimbah Preschool and
Children’s Centre
• Ann Pelo, Critical friend and
outdoor consultant, Seattle,
USA
• Dr Sue Elliott, University of
New England
Funding:
KU Children’s Services, Sydney
Thalgarrah Environmental Education
Centre (TEEC)
Framing the research project
Research questions:
• What play affordances do children perceive and what
appears to characterise their selections and reasoning
within the new nature playspace at Thalgarrah EEC?
• How do accompanying teachers perceive nature play and
interpret children’s nature play and learning at Thalgarrah
EEC?
Theoretical Framing:
• Gibson’s (1986) theory of affordances
• Social constructionism (Guba & Lincoln, 2005)
• UN Rights of the Child (UNICEF, 1989)
Methodology:
Mosaic methodology which identifies children as active
researchers and incorporates multiple authentic ways of
listening to children's views about their experiences (Clark,
2005).
Participants:
Children aged 3-8 years and their teachers, an early
childhood and a school group visited TEEC weekly over a
six week period to experience the nature playspace.
Methods:
• Child-led walking interviews (Greenfield, 2011) were
conducted during the fifth or sixth visits, children were
invited to show the researcher their ‘best place to play’,
take a photo of the place with an Ipad and talk about their
reasons.
• Later, the researcher visited the children in their settings
to conduct a small focus group discussion to prioritise
their ideas about the nature playspace.
• Teachers were invited to complete a questionnaire about
their experiences in the nature playspace.
Preliminary Findings
1. Children’s most and least popular Nature play
spaces
2. Children’s reasoning sustaining their selections
• Most popular spaces for Children
Preliminary Findings (cont’d)
Most popular space Frequency count
Rope swing 20
Muddy waterhole 16
Dirt hill 14
Trickle hill 12
Leaning log 11
Sandpit 11
• Least popular spaces for children
Preliminary Findings (cont’d)
Least popular space Frequency count
Muddy kitchen 2
Blocks and rocks 3
Bamboo patch 5
Preliminary Findings (cont’d)
Least popular (children) Least popular (teacher)
Mud Kitchen Bamboo plantation
Blocks and rocks Sandpit
Bamboo plantation Swing
Blocks and rocks
Most popular (children) Most popular (teacher)
Rope swing Muddy waterhole
Muddy waterhole Mud Kitchen
Dirt Hill Trickle hill
Trickle hill Leaning Log
Leaning Log
Sandpit
Preliminary Findings (cont’d)
Official terminology (Matt’s) Children’s terminologies
The leaning log The balancing log; the wobbly log
The bamboo plantation The bamboo forest, the bamboo sticks; the spy
place
The muddy waterhole The muddy river; The big river; The muddy
puddle; The pond; the creek
The sandpit The bone pit; the bone dig area;
The dirt pile The dirt hill; the mining hill; the rock hill; The
play mountain; the clay mountain.
Reasoning sustaining children’s choices
• Enjoyment
• Social element
• Risk factor
• Physical landscape
Other reasons included……
• Being able to manipulate the space (e.g. throwing
items; rearranging loose parts; placing a bone on the
rope swing…)
• Ability to use the space in imaginative ways (e.g.
hunting for tadpoles, mining for fossils or gold,
fishing…)
Preliminary Findings (cont’d)
Quotes from teachers
“A highly valuable program that I know will be a highlight for the children for years to come. I hope this is potentially the beginning of how this type of play/learning can be integrated within schools in our area.”
“Feedback from parents was always positive (muddy washing aside) that their children were always energized and excited to go to school each Monday.”
“The children’s behaviour was impressive in the Nature Play area as they all played cooperatively together and there was also individualised play and exploration.”
“It allowed students to set their own boundaries and challenge themselves.”
KU Ourimbah: Rationale/context1. Very limited Australian research re nature play, including
conceptual learning
2. Unique rainforest setting on-campus with frogs iconic in the
region
3. Ongoing children’s interests in flora/fauna/maps due to daily
on campus walks
4. Practitioner/researcher role based on established relationships
with children, families and community partners
5. Project approach is a familiar and transferable curriculum
approach (Katz, Chard & Kogan, 2014)
6. Strong alignment with centre philosophy and pedagogy, plus
EYLF and NQS
7. Tangible accessible outcome/artefact to support broader
advocacy and communication
Framing the research project:
Key research question
• How might co-
constructed
conceptual learning
occur within a
project approach to
children’s creation
of artefacts about
frogs in their local
environs.
Theoretical framing:
• Social constructionism (Guba & Lincoln, 2005)
• Interpretive research paradigm (Mukherji & Albon,
2015).
Methodology:
• Narrative or ‘story telling focus’ about the three
project approach phases implemented by the
children and researcher/practitioner.
Participants:
• Ten children aged 4-5 years participated with
the practitioner/researcher over 4 week period,
two consecutive days each week
Methods:
• Video diary of interactions created throughout
the project
• Focus groups with children, one in each of the
three project approach phases
• Reflective journal by the practitioner/researcher
including critical friend input
• Creation of artefact(s) and documents during
the project
Preliminary findings
Phase 1: Beginning the project
What creatures do we notice in our local setting?
Phase 2: Project in progress
What can we find out by researching with others about
Gambusia fish and frogs?
Phase 3: Concluding the project
Telling everybody what we know?
Preliminary findings (con’t)
Conceptual understandings:
Belonging and balance
Artefacts as vehicles for communication:
• Biotopic map
• Drawings and plans
• Project book
• Letters
• 3D constructions
• Green screen stories
SPEED DATING
DISCUSSIONS
What next for you?
What has provoked or challenged your
thinking?
What might you do differently?
E. MOVING FORWARD:
QUESTIONS AND RESOURCES
• How do we implement nature play programs in ways that
reflect early years philosophies, pedagogies and the
EYLF/VEYLDF?
• How do we manage risk with children in uniquely
Australian contexts?
• Is specific training essential or optional? What type of
training is relevant in Australia?
• How do we acknowledge and incorporate Indigenous
perspectives?
• How do we care for and maintain the natural play spaces
that we use in the longer term?
• How do we pedagogically explore beyond ‘sentiments of
nature stewardship’ with children towards ethical
worldviews and the ECOcene?
Key international resources
• Publications by Sarah Knight, Claire Warden, Jane Williams-Siegfredsen
• Insideout Nature: tours, training, resources
www.insideoutnature.com
• UK Forest School Association established in 2012
http://www.forestschoolassociation.org/
• Forest School Canada established in 2012
http://www.forestschoolcanada.ca/home/about-us
• Also, online ‘forest preschool’ or ‘nature kindergarten’ searches will locate a growing number of resources
Australian Resources• Boroondara Council Protecting our bushland areas
Guidelines for Bush Kinders
• ECOLN http://earlychildhoodoutdoorlearning.weebly.com/
• Kids in Nature Network http://www.kidsinnaturenetwork.org.au/
• Victorian Nature Play Week, April 2018
http://natureplayweek.org.au/
• Kids in Nature Australia
http://www.kidsinnature.com.au/
Nature Play Government supported initiatives:
• WA Nature Play http://www.natureplaywa.org.au/
• SA Nature Play http://www.natureplaysa.org.au/
• QLD Nature Play http://www.natureplayqld.org.au/
Did we listen? Leunig is still telling us no
device is needed!
Photo acknowledgements
Thanks to these people and places for their inspiration:
Balnarring Kindergarten Beach Kinder, Victoria
Centennial Parklands, Wild Play, NSW
Cincinnati Nature Centre, Nature Preschool, USA
Fussingo Nature Kindergarten, Denmark
Kings Park Rio Tinto Naturescape, Western Australia
Kyoto Forest Preschool, Japan
Koiari Park School, PNG
Outdoor Connections, Holiday Programs, NSW
Quirindi Preschool, NSW
Saplings Outdoor Program, West Vancouver
Seattle Children’s Playgarden, USA
Sooke School Nature Kindergarten, Vancouver Island, Canada
Westgarth Kindergarten Bush Kinder, Victoria
Yarralea Preschool Bush Kinder, Victoria
Thanks to the wonderful Leunig also for the sunrise/TV and device cartoons!
References
Ärlemalm-Hagsér, E. (2013). Respect for nature: A prescription for developing
environmental awareness in preschool. Centre for Educational Policy Studies Journal,
3(1), 25-44.
Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA]. The Australian
Curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum.
Clark, A. (2005). Ways of seeing: Using the Mosaic approach to listen to young children’s
perspectives. In Clark, A., Kjørholt & Moss, P. (Eds.) Beyond listening: Children’s
perspectives on early childhood services (pp. 29–49). Bristol: Policy Press.
Commonwealth of Australia Department of Education, Employment & Workplace
Relations (DEEWR) (2009). Belonging, being and becoming: The early years learning
framework for Australia. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Employment &
Workplace Relations.
Elliott, S. & Chancellor, B. (2014). From forest preschool to bush kinder: An inspirational
approach to preschool provision in Australia. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood,
39(4), pp.45-53.
Fjortoft, I. (2004). Landscape as playscape: The effects of natural environments on
children’s play and motor development. Children, Youth and Environments, 14(2), 21-44.
Gibson, J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Gill, T. (2011). Children and nature: A quasi-systematic review of the empirical evidence,
London: Sustainable Development Commission.
ReferencesGreenfield, C. (2011). Personal reflection on research process and tools: Effectiveness,
highlights and challenges using the mosaic approach. Australasian Journal of Early
Childhood, 36(3), 109-116.
Grogan, L. (2014). Investigating pedagogical practices in a Bush Kinder setting in relation
to early childhood education for sustainability to inform pre-service courses in early
childhood education. Master of Education Thesis, Charles Sturt University.
Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and
emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative
research (3rd ed.) (pp. 191-216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Habermas (1989). The tasks of a critical social theory of society. In E. Bronner & D.
MacKay Kellner (Eds.) Critical theory and society: A reader. London: Routledge.
Katz, L., Chard, S. & Kogan, Y. (2014). Engaging children's minds: The project approach
(3rd edn.). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Kelly, J. & White E. J. (2013). The Ngahere Project: Teaching and learning possibilities in
nature settings. Retrieved from
http://www.waikato.ac.nz/data/assets/pdf_file/0007/146176/Ngahere-project_3-2013-03-
14.pdf
Knight, S. (2009). Forest schools and outdoor learning in the early years. London: Sage.
Leather, M. (2016). A critique of forest school: Something lost in translation. Journal of
Outdoor and Environmental Education. 2-11.
References
Lloro-Bidart, T. (2016). A feminist posthumanist political ecology of education for
theorizing human-animal relations/relationships. Environmental Education Research.
DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2015.1135419.
MacNaughton, G. (2003). Shaping early childhood. Maidenhead, England: Open
University Press.
Malone, K. & Waite, S. (2016). Student outcomes and natural schooling. Plymouth:
Plymouth University. Retrieved from http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/research/oelres-net
Mukherji, P. & Albon, D. (2015). Research methods in early childhood (2nd ed.). London:
Sage.
O’Brien, L. (2009). Learning outdoors: The forest school approach. Education 3-13,
37(1), 45-60.
O’Brien, L. & Murray, R. (2008). Forest school: A marvellous opportunity to learn research
summary. Farnham, UK: Forest Research. Retrieved from
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/fr0112forestschoolsreport.pdf/$FILE/fr0112forestschoolsrep
ort.pdf
Plumwood, V. (2003). Feminism and the mastery of nature (2nd edn). New York:
Routledge.
Robinson, L. & Vaealiki, S. (2015). Ethics and pedagogy at the heart of early childhood
education for sustainability. In J. Davis, Young children and the environment (pp. 103-
123). Melbourne: Cambridge.
ReferencesSteffen, W., Crutzen, P. J. & McNeill, J. R. (2007). The Anthropocene: Are humans now
overwhelming the great forces of nature? Ambio ol. 36(8), 614-621.
Taylor, A. (2013). Reconfiguring the natures of childhood. London: Routledge.
Waters, J. (2012) Talking in wild outdoor spaces. In S. Knight, International perspectives
on forest school (pp 12-26). London: Sage.
UNICEF (1989). United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved from
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm
Victorian Department of Education and Training (2016). Victorian early years learning and
development framework. Melbourne: Victorian Department of Education and Training.
Top Related