Education for Sustainability
Pedagogical provocations for Education for Sustainability in Bush Kinder
Dr Sue Elliott, University of New England
The ‘play in nature’ mantra has been promoted for over a decade now in the early childhood field both locally and internationally. In particular, many educators are aware of the ‘Children and Nature’ movement launched in the United States by Richard Louv (2005) with his publication The Last Child in the Woods: Saving our Children from Nature Deficit Disorder. Such broad public advocacy supported by relevant research has filtered through to Belonging, Being and Becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia (EYLF) (DEEWR, 2009) and the Guide to the National Standard (NQS) (ACECQA, 2013). These policy documents require natural elements in early childhood settings and promote environmental stewardship by children and educators alike; however, a detailed critique of the education for sustainability (EfS) rhetoric in the EYLF (DEEWR, 2009) offered by Davis and Arlemalm-Hagser (2014) suggests there is still room for improvement.
‘Bush kinders’ or ‘forest preschools’ could be described as quintessential ‘play in nature’ programs, and here I outline some pedagogical provocations for education for sustainability (EfS). This is not to detract from the initial policy achievements above, but to recognise that the implementation of EfS requires more than a dogmatic adherence to the ‘play in nature’ mantra. The recent exponential growth of ‘bush kinder’ or ‘forest preschool’ programs internationally (Knight, 2013) and in Australia (Elliott & Chancellor, 2014) (our current best estimate is over one hundred programs in Victoria and New South Wales alone) has created unique EfS opportunities, but I question are early childhood educators making the most of these opportunities? Also, a review of the international forest preschool/school guidelines now available from Canada (Forest School Canada, 2014), the United Kingdom (Knight, 2012) and Denmark (Williams-Siegfredsen, 2012) indicates a failure to explicitly recognise sustainability as a core principle underpinning forest preschool/school implementation and more specifically, as integral to pedagogy. Educators do need to explore with children beyond the obvious sensory aspects and sentiments of nature stewardship to scaffold ethical worldviews informed by the various complexities and dimensions of sustainable futures.
In the second edition of Davis (2015) Young Children and the Environment: Early Education for Sustainability I proposed links between play in nature and EfS; and, these offer a starting point for both informing and challenging ‘bush kinder’ pedagogy.
· Exploring affective knowing of nature in our responses to bush kinder experiences is essential; in particular, how do we feel and how does each child evocatively experience nature. As educators do we actively facilitate and ensure time for such responses and recognise that affective knowing can be highly motivational in making decisions about sustainable living? Affective knowing harks back to The Sense of Wonder by Rachel Carson first published in 1956 (republished 1998), however we must acknowledge that affective knowing alone is insufficient to address current global sustainability challenges.
· Cognitive knowing about plants and animals as entities is a given in bush kinder settings; but, do we also examine cognitive knowing from a systems perspective, seeking to understand interdependencies and relationships. How are the various plants, animals and physical elements interconnected to create a functional dynamic whole? This cognitive knowing of whole systems, not just parts, is fundamental to comprehending and enacting sustainability both locally and globally. As bush kinder educators are we incorporating big picture systems thinking in our pedagogies?
· Many cognitive, social and physical skills are documented in relation to the benefits of bush kinder programs, but do educators also view these skills as part of building sustainable futures? For example, risk management skills are well canvassed as integral to these programs; but, do educators also recognise that globally we are currently engaged in a major global warming risk management exercise in somewhat unpredictable and diverse environmental, social, economic and political contexts? This more comprehensive view might better inform how we actively interpret and scaffold risk management, beyond the mere physical.
· Cultivating an ethical sustainable worldview in bush kinder programs requires educators to strongly support and be open to children’s questioning of values and demonstration of agency. In particular, Hagglund and Johansson (2014) argue that revealing values and value differences are a prerequisite for learning in sustainability and suggest that value conflicts offer pedagogical potential as part of co-constructing curriculum with children. Also, children’s agency is most often espoused in terms of the individual in early childhood, but in sustainability collective and relational agencies must also come to the fore. In other words pedagogically exploring with children, how can we effect change together and how might we do this better together.
As Arlemalm-Hagser (2013) has argued ‘there is a disjuncture in early childhood practice between promoting children’s stewardship of the environment and the need for critical discussion about human relationships with nature and for children to be vocal participants in this discussion’ (Elliott, 2015, p. 48). Further, Taylor’s (2013) work theoretically interrogates play in nature and human-nature relationships and challenges us to rethink why and how we engage with children in natural spaces. Also, Jensen (2002, cited in Lassoe & Krasny, 2013, p. 17) suggests that viewing ‘participation as encounters with nature has a restricted scope’, in EfS educators must engage children ‘in deliberative dialogues to explore causes of environmental problems, create visions, and learn by acting for change’. In bush kinder programs there are unique opportunities for implementing EfS, if educators are willing to engage in some pedagogical shifts, to see more than simply sensory encounters with nature and environmental stewardship, to create the potential for transformative EfS learning and promote construction of ethical worldviews aligned with sustainable futures.
References
Arlemalm-Hagser, E. (2013). Respect for nature: A prescription for developing environmental awareness in preschool. Centre for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 3 (1), 25-44.
Australian Children’s Education & Care Quality Authority (ACECQA). (2013). Guide to the national standard. Retrieved from http://files.acecqa.gov.au/files/National-Quality-Framework-Resources-Kit/NQF03-Guide-to-NQS-130902.pdf.
Carson, R. (1956, republished 1998). The sense of wonder. New York: Harper & Row.
Davis, J. (Ed.). (2015). Young children and the environment: Early education for sustainability (2nd ed.). Port Melbourne, Vic: Cambridge University Press.
Davis, J., & Arlemalm-Hagser, E. (2014). Examining the rhetoric: A comparison of how sustainability and young children's participation and agency are framed in Australian and Swedish early childhood education curricula. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 15(3), 231-244.
Department of Education, Employment & Workplace Relations (DEEWR) (2009). Belonging, being and becoming: The early years learning framework for Australia. Canberra: DEEWR.
Dickinson, E. (2013). The Misdiagnosis: Rethinking "nature deficit disorder". Environmental communication. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2013.802704
Elliott, S. (2015). Children in the natural world. In J. Davis (Ed.) Young children and the environment: Early education for sustainability (pp.32-54). 2nd Ed. Port Melbourne, VIC: Cambridge University Press.
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), 45-53.
Forest School Canada (2014). Forest and nature school in Canada: A head, heart and hands approach to outdoor learning. Retrieved from http://www.forestschoolcanada.ca/wp-content/themes/wlf/images/FSC-Guide_web.pdf?date=july72014
Hägglund, S., & Johansson, E. M. (2014). Belonging, value conflicts and children's rights in learning for sustainability in early childhood. In J. Davis & S. Elliott (Eds.), Research in early childhood education for sustainability: International perspectives and provocations (pp. 38-48). London: Routledge.
Knight, S. (2013). International perspectives on forest school: Natural places to play and learn. London: Sage Publications.
Lassoe, J., & Krasny M. E. (2013). Participation in environmental education. In M. E. Krasny & J. Dillon (Eds.) Trading zones in environmental education: Creating transdisciplinary dialogue (pp.11-44). New York: Peter Lang.
Louv, R. (2005). The last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature deficit disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books.
Taylor, A. (2013). Reconfiguring the natures of childhood. London: Routledge.
Williams-Siegfredsen, J. (2012). Understanding the Danish forest school approach. Oxon, UK: Routledge.
Dr Sue Elliott, University of New England
The ‘play in nature’ mantra has been promoted for over a decade now in the early childhood field both locally and internationally. In particular, many educators are aware of the ‘Children and Nature’ movement launched in the United States by Richard Louv (2005) with his publication The Last Child in the Woods: Saving our Children from Nature Deficit Disorder. Such broad public advocacy supported by relevant research has filtered through to Belonging, Being and Becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia (EYLF) (DEEWR, 2009) and the Guide to the National Standard (NQS) (ACECQA, 2013). These policy documents require natural elements in early childhood settings and promote environmental stewardship by children and educators alike; however, a detailed critique of the education for sustainability (EfS) rhetoric in the EYLF (DEEWR, 2009) offered by Davis and Arlemalm-Hagser (2014) suggests there is still room for improvement.
‘Bush kinders’ or ‘forest preschools’ could be described as quintessential ‘play in nature’ programs, and here I outline some pedagogical provocations for education for sustainability (EfS). This is not to detract from the initial policy achievements above, but to recognise that the implementation of EfS requires more than a dogmatic adherence to the ‘play in nature’ mantra. The recent exponential growth of ‘bush kinder’ or ‘forest preschool’ programs internationally (Knight, 2013) and in Australia (Elliott & Chancellor, 2014) (our current best estimate is over one hundred programs in Victoria and New South Wales alone) has created unique EfS opportunities, but I question are early childhood educators making the most of these opportunities? Also, a review of the international forest preschool/school guidelines now available from Canada (Forest School Canada, 2014), the United Kingdom (Knight, 2012) and Denmark (Williams-Siegfredsen, 2012) indicates a failure to explicitly recognise sustainability as a core principle underpinning forest preschool/school implementation and more specifically, as integral to pedagogy. Educators do need to explore with children beyond the obvious sensory aspects and sentiments of nature stewardship to scaffold ethical worldviews informed by the various complexities and dimensions of sustainable futures.
In the second edition of Davis (2015) Young Children and the Environment: Early Education for Sustainability I proposed links between play in nature and EfS; and, these offer a starting point for both informing and challenging ‘bush kinder’ pedagogy.
· Exploring affective knowing of nature in our responses to bush kinder experiences is essential; in particular, how do we feel and how does each child evocatively experience nature. As educators do we actively facilitate and ensure time for such responses and recognise that affective knowing can be highly motivational in making decisions about sustainable living? Affective knowing harks back to The Sense of Wonder by Rachel Carson first published in 1956 (republished 1998), however we must acknowledge that affective knowing alone is insufficient to address current global sustainability challenges.
· Cognitive knowing about plants and animals as entities is a given in bush kinder settings; but, do we also examine cognitive knowing from a systems perspective, seeking to understand interdependencies and relationships. How are the various plants, animals and physical elements interconnected to create a functional dynamic whole? This cognitive knowing of whole systems, not just parts, is fundamental to comprehending and enacting sustainability both locally and globally. As bush kinder educators are we incorporating big picture systems thinking in our pedagogies?
· Many cognitive, social and physical skills are documented in relation to the benefits of bush kinder programs, but do educators also view these skills as part of building sustainable futures? For example, risk management skills are well canvassed as integral to these programs; but, do educators also recognise that globally we are currently engaged in a major global warming risk management exercise in somewhat unpredictable and diverse environmental, social, economic and political contexts? This more comprehensive view might better inform how we actively interpret and scaffold risk management, beyond the mere physical.
· Cultivating an ethical sustainable worldview in bush kinder programs requires educators to strongly support and be open to children’s questioning of values and demonstration of agency. In particular, Hagglund and Johansson (2014) argue that revealing values and value differences are a prerequisite for learning in sustainability and suggest that value conflicts offer pedagogical potential as part of co-constructing curriculum with children. Also, children’s agency is most often espoused in terms of the individual in early childhood, but in sustainability collective and relational agencies must also come to the fore. In other words pedagogically exploring with children, how can we effect change together and how might we do this better together.
As Arlemalm-Hagser (2013) has argued ‘there is a disjuncture in early childhood practice between promoting children’s stewardship of the environment and the need for critical discussion about human relationships with nature and for children to be vocal participants in this discussion’ (Elliott, 2015, p. 48). Further, Taylor’s (2013) work theoretically interrogates play in nature and human-nature relationships and challenges us to rethink why and how we engage with children in natural spaces. Also, Jensen (2002, cited in Lassoe & Krasny, 2013, p. 17) suggests that viewing ‘participation as encounters with nature has a restricted scope’, in EfS educators must engage children ‘in deliberative dialogues to explore causes of environmental problems, create visions, and learn by acting for change’. In bush kinder programs there are unique opportunities for implementing EfS, if educators are willing to engage in some pedagogical shifts, to see more than simply sensory encounters with nature and environmental stewardship, to create the potential for transformative EfS learning and promote construction of ethical worldviews aligned with sustainable futures.
References
Arlemalm-Hagser, E. (2013). Respect for nature: A prescription for developing environmental awareness in preschool. Centre for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 3 (1), 25-44.
Australian Children’s Education & Care Quality Authority (ACECQA). (2013). Guide to the national standard. Retrieved from http://files.acecqa.gov.au/files/National-Quality-Framework-Resources-Kit/NQF03-Guide-to-NQS-130902.pdf.
Carson, R. (1956, republished 1998). The sense of wonder. New York: Harper & Row.
Davis, J. (Ed.). (2015). Young children and the environment: Early education for sustainability (2nd ed.). Port Melbourne, Vic: Cambridge University Press.
Davis, J., & Arlemalm-Hagser, E. (2014). Examining the rhetoric: A comparison of how sustainability and young children's participation and agency are framed in Australian and Swedish early childhood education curricula. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 15(3), 231-244.
Department of Education, Employment & Workplace Relations (DEEWR) (2009). Belonging, being and becoming: The early years learning framework for Australia. Canberra: DEEWR.
Dickinson, E. (2013). The Misdiagnosis: Rethinking "nature deficit disorder". Environmental communication. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2013.802704
Elliott, S. (2015). Children in the natural world. In J. Davis (Ed.) Young children and the environment: Early education for sustainability (pp.32-54). 2nd Ed. Port Melbourne, VIC: Cambridge University Press.
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), 45-53.
Forest School Canada (2014). Forest and nature school in Canada: A head, heart and hands approach to outdoor learning. Retrieved from http://www.forestschoolcanada.ca/wp-content/themes/wlf/images/FSC-Guide_web.pdf?date=july72014
Hägglund, S., & Johansson, E. M. (2014). Belonging, value conflicts and children's rights in learning for sustainability in early childhood. In J. Davis & S. Elliott (Eds.), Research in early childhood education for sustainability: International perspectives and provocations (pp. 38-48). London: Routledge.
Knight, S. (2013). International perspectives on forest school: Natural places to play and learn. London: Sage Publications.
Lassoe, J., & Krasny M. E. (2013). Participation in environmental education. In M. E. Krasny & J. Dillon (Eds.) Trading zones in environmental education: Creating transdisciplinary dialogue (pp.11-44). New York: Peter Lang.
Louv, R. (2005). The last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature deficit disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books.
Taylor, A. (2013). Reconfiguring the natures of childhood. London: Routledge.
Williams-Siegfredsen, J. (2012). Understanding the Danish forest school approach. Oxon, UK: Routledge.