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.