Blue Spaces: Coastal Areas as a Teaching Context for Setting Aside Technologization in Early Childhood Sustainability Education

Abstract

Humanity is at a critical juncture in its response to environmental issues. Coastal land spaces are under threat from rising sea levels and storm surges accelerating erosion and degradation. Children have an important role in sustaining a viable environmental future. Education for sustainability in early childhood (EC) nature-based settings has the potential to disrupt the current crisis by deepening children’s understanding of the environment. Many educators who practice nature pedagogy in early childhood education (ECE) shy away from using technological tools despite our existence in a time of artificial intelligence and digitalisation, some of which is becoming evident in EC sustainability education. This paper will consider the use of blue spaces that incorporate the waters, sands, and coastal land adjacent to the water’s age for EC sustainability teaching and learning. It will focus on questioning the role of technologization, particularly technological tools, on the forms of sustainability education that preschool children experience while in nature-based settings. Interrogating recent research of nature-based kindergartens undertaken at Australian coastal contexts, and drawing on seminal international documentation, it will focus on the development of young children’s empathy and ‘ethos of care’ for living things, their considerations of local ecosystems, and their growing understandings of the interrelationships between elements of their environment. The paper will then consider how the application of technological tools intersects with sustainability education in the context of blue spaces. The research highlights the importance of the educator in the development of interactive, learner-centred opportunities that not only enable investigative, action-adapted learning but also fosters independent learners who are responsive to their natural environment. The implication of this research is that further considerations of technologization and children’s environmental agency through a play-based, emergent curriculum are necessary.

1. Introduction

Children’s earliest years, from birth to five years of age, are significant in terms of developing their understandings of the world around them. It is a time when they begin to explore their environment and learn through interacting with what is around them. They begin to build relationships with others and to appreciate the complexities of their immediate surroundings and how these complexities impact their lives and, in doing so, build an ecological identity that ‘encompasses individuals’ knowledge of, reverence for, and actions towards the environment’ [1] (p. 34). In this period of early childhood, young children begin to appreciate their place in society and their knowledge is fostered by families and teachers, making these formative years particularly critical for young children [2].

Young children are as much impacted as the remainder of the global population by the events that occur around them at both a local and global level, although they are often shielded by families from the difficulties we face as a society [2]. At present, we stand at the brink of a climate emergency. Interconnected events including pandemics, environmental disasters such as wildfires, inland floods, and rising sea levels are shaping humanity’s existence on Earth. This polycrisis of colliding environmental catastrophes will add to the predicament facing today’s young children in the future. To understand how these challenges are impacting ecosystems, young children need to spend time in diverse natural environments. Only then will they appreciate the importance and criticality of the natural world to human existence. Yet, as multiple natural crises interact at once, we exist in a world that has been technologized. While technology can be viewed as ‘a human activity that responds to needs and wants by designing solutions’ [3] (p. 2), here we present it as a process, where technologization implies that actions, thinking, and doing all require some form of technology (process or product). Technology and associated technological tools pervade almost every aspect of human life but, as a reaction to ensuring young children are not isolated from the natural world, there are growing calls for a reversal to this trend of technologization, as elsewhere it has been found that when children use technology, they are more sedentary, focussed on a screen, and not engaging as much with the environment. When directly engaging with the environment, they are using all five senses and experiencing and learning aspects of the surroundings that cannot be experienced through the technology. Children, many of whom are (over) reliant on technology, are being urged to divert their attention away from technology to grow their knowledge of the natural world [4,5,6]. With this notion of children having greater exposure to nature, came the launch of a new curriculum framework in Australia in 2009, Belonging, Being and Becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia (EYLF) [7], and its later revision in 2022 [8] that promoted time spent in the outdoors. Indirectly, this created different opportunities for technologization to occur within their pre-school settings.

The paper draws on an ethnographic study that was undertaken across 2015–2023 and applies data obtained through participant observation, written as vignettes, to explain how young children’s coastal and ocean literacy changes over time. The research draws on data to explore the use of technological tools in natural settings, including ‘blue spaces’ and how young children experience nature-based play where technological tools are removed. We also highlight the benefits of educators applying technological tools including apps for information retrieval, GPS locating, and photograph/video-capturing for pedagogical purposes whilst in blue space learning contexts. We seek to affirm that taking young children into nature-based learning contexts, particularly blue spaces, can be a rich learning experience to develop their knowledge of the environment and to be resourceful, sustainable, and not reliant on a technological world, as human-made or synthetic items are not accessible during the session. What we also sought to question was whether the growth of a nature-based approach to teaching and learning, approaches popular for decades and in some instances developed by curriculum in regions such as Scandinavia and the United Kingdom, support the implementation of sustainability education embedded in programs such as forest or nature kindergartens [9,10]. We respond to the following research question: how does time spent in blue spaces and away from technological tools support young children’s sustainability learning experience?

1.1. Nature-Based Education and Pedagogy in Blue Spaces

In Australia, a ‘bush kinder’ approach has been adopted, drawing upon European exemplars of nature-based ECEC teaching and learning [11,12]. Taking preschool children out into natural environments to learn about sustainable practices in Scandinavian countries and the United Kingdom has been popularised for approximately fifty years. Australian educators have increasingly taken up this approach in since the mid-2010s which has witnessed Australian preschool children from the ages of three to five years at ECEC sites venture out into parklands or public reserves for a day to play and learn through discovery as a component of their regular preschool program. Adopting a nature-based approach to ECEC has been a significant change, taking children away from the confines of weatherboard or ‘bricks and mortar’ buildings that may include an adjacent outdoor play area enclosed by high gates and fences but lacked the space to allow children to run and experience nature. It gave educators a wider breadth of opportunities to include sustainability in nature as part of the children’s learning that often takes place in a play-based manner [13]. Some bush kinder educators, where the beach was near their kindergarten, saw merit in using coastal or ‘blue’ spaces as places of learning, moving to a beachside setting where children can venture into the water, play on the sand and in nearby shrubbery [14]. This led to different prospects for teaching and learning than what had been available in green spaces and the application of ‘nature pedagogy’ [15] gave rise to different opportunities to embed an emergent curriculum specific to blue spaces.

Considerations of nature-based ECEC approaches often see green and blue spaces coalesce into one; however, the benefits differ. Green spaces are those which include forests, parklands, and public reserves which are often popular as sites of nature-based ECEC teaching and learning approaches [16]. Blue spaces are often less available as learning contexts due to kindergartens being in metropolitan cities, yet access to blue spaces have been found to be highly beneficial, giving comfort and security and leading to enhanced wellbeing outcomes for children [16,17]. Blue spaces also act as places to support children’s interactions and lead to the development of respectful relationships between learners and nature [18], initiating deepening understandings of sustainable practices and a love of nature or ‘biophilia’ [19]. Educators can find many opportunities to deliver curriculum-based learning that can incorporate both a formal curriculum and an emergent curriculum in a blue space [16,20]. Emergent curricula, when teaching occurs ‘in the moment’ and at point of need as children discover through their play, have been found to be particularly appropriate as a method of teaching young children in nature-based ECEC contexts [21] as both formal and informal learning opportunities coupled with physical and social development opportunities abound in nature [22]. Research focussing on blue spaces as an ECEC context remains undertheorised as most of the focus has been placed upon older, school-aged children’s time spent in blue spaces [16,22]. Yet, despite this, there is growing consideration of how blue spaces can be utilised in ECEC, particularly as the benefits of blue spaces gain greater recognition for giving children exposure to Indigenous knowledges, STEM, and emotional wellbeing learning [14,16,17,20]. Anderson [14] for example, has applied First Nations People’s culture in her ECEC teaching at a beach setting. Christiansen and colleagues [11] have reported on marine animal lifecycles and children’s learning eventuating from the locating of a dead sea animal on the beach. Science knowledge can be enhanced by regular ECEC sessions as these blue space contexts are constantly evolving due to the tides and often strong winds [20].

Blue spaces provide a backdrop for a range of learning opportunities including sustainability in ECEC. Christiansen and colleagues’ [11] (p. 71) view blue spaces as providing ‘an authentic connection to place and the local community would require meaningful engagement with the land that made up the immediate surrounds of the kindergarten’. Blue spaces foster confidence and resilience exceeding what can be taught in the indoor classroom [16,23], allowing children to experiment with sustainability ideas, practices, and principles while they develop problem-solving skills, creativity, imagination, and teamwork skills that are all applied in blue spaces as children walk on the sand and rocks [20]. Blue spaces have also been found to be a valuable context for educators to support behavioural, mental, emotional, and/or social issues experienced by children [22]. They ‘provide a contextualised place for contesting and challenging critical issues centred on the child’s locality’ and have value in applying ‘the natural environment of the coastline to demonstrate the biodiversity of the planet’ [24] (p. 877). There is merit in enacting sustainability as a key part of ocean literacy ECEC programs as they can be ‘useful pedagogic tool(s) to build coherent and conceptually sound scientific learning experiences for young children’ [24] (p. 889). Added to the benefits of time spent in blue spaces is the additional language learning; memory imprinting of place; improved classroom learning in more traditional, indoor early childhood settings; and the challenge to educators of becoming ‘more adventurous in their planning’ in beach settings [22] (p. 85) that can lead to deeper literacy, social, and emotional learning, and STEM understandings in children [16]. This widely recognised myriad of benefits of young children’s time spent in blue spaces as part of beach kinder programs make them ideal places to encourage educators to incorporate sustainability teaching and learning in ECEC.

1.2. Technologization in ECEC Nature-Based Contexts

In general terms, Undheim [25] (p. 481) notes technology’s usefulness as a resource for ‘mathematical learning, literacy learning, and exploratory learning, to follow up on children’s interests in meaningful ways’. The technological tools that are readily apparent in nature-based contexts such as sticks and rocks have been found to be highly beneficial to young children’s development [26]. This use of what is naturally occurring in outdoor environments supports some scholars and practitioners who believe that a nature-based experience is one that should solely rely on using what nature provides for playful learning. Many Australian beach kinders, for example, see educators reliant only on what nature provides the children for play, and technology takes no part in nature-based children’s play-based learning [20]. This Australian approach can be seen as reflective of the stance of House [27] who describes the introduction of technology into an ECEC setting as akin to playing a game of ‘Russian Roulette’ as humanity loses touch with nature and the environment.

The application of technological devices, often titled digital technology, in nature-based contexts forms a polarising debate [28]. Despite the widespread recognition of the impact of digital technology, the uptake of technology in some contexts of ECEC has been limited [29]. For example, Hughes and colleagues [30] note that digital technologies often are seen as counterproductive to children desiring to be in nature. Technological devices and tools are a way for adults entertain and keep children occupied, which has led to a decline in children being in the outdoors and experiencing nature play [31]. House [27] similarly places the issue of the growth of technologies as leading to sensory deprivation and a disconnection from reality and learning. Elsewhere, it has been confirmed that ‘uncontrolled use of gadgets among young children can disrupt social-emotional development, particularly during the critical period for forming healthy social skills’ [32] (p. 17). While the evidence from some academic research is bleak, indicating that a divide exists between the appropriate use of technology and young children’s learning, it is the lack of integration of digital technologies with pedagogical perspectives on play [33] that remains the greatest issue as a significant amount of young children’s learning occurs through playfulness.

Edwards [33] (p. 200) found that curriculum documents fall short in separating ‘the description of play as a basis for pedagogy from their reference to children’s uses of technologies for communication or creative purposes.’ More specific to nature-based ECEC is the common concern among educators that introducing technology as part of time spent in nature has impacts on the sanctity of childhood and diminishes connections that children build with nature [31]. Also viewed as an unwelcome distraction for children, technology draws children in to ‘pervasive entertainment technologies that are mind numbing and addictive’ [31] (p. 193). Time spent in blue spaces as a learning context can be viewed as a reaction to the encroachment of technology on young children’s lives yet, in other spheres, examples have been shown of the positive merits of including technology in ECEC, including the impact on educator pedagogy.

The benefits of taking a range of technological devices into the outdoors are for children to develop their learning by accessing information regarding what exists in nature, which can enhance sustainability education. Educators can use devices as technological tools to support children’s understanding of life cycles or identify native species of plants and animals and how to ensure habitats are protected. Technological tools such as digital cameras can be applied to capture children building environmental competencies and creative agency when in nature while also fostering connection to the environment [34]. The COVID pandemic forced many children to become digital experts as education providers used technology for teaching purposes [35]. Digital technology similarly ensured families and young friends could remain in contact. Advocates for using iPads and similar devices to support children’s learning demonstrate the learning benefits associated with drawing on technology [35]. The power of image capture and recording by educators for later conversations among children can lead to discussions about what knowledge a child has gained [31]. Bird and Pearson [35] hold the view that sharing of ideas and knowledge flow from technology and applying technology enhances the learner experience as children can ‘create digital content and then share it … with photographs and seeing themselves represented in digital form … playing in a garden or mud patch.’ These outdoor forms of nature-based experience that Bird and Pearson [35] apply to support their thesis are pivotal what transpires in a blue space.

In terms of the benefits of using technology in nature-based learning, Johnston and Highfield [36] believe that technology and outdoor play in early childhood provide the mechanism for children’s autonomy and agency in their learning experiences. Amongst the intersections between technological tools and sustainability education, research indicates crowdsourcing apps being useful for citizen science [37]. While these apps are typically too advanced for ECEC, they remain forms of technological tools, such as apps, that educators can apply in their pedagogy that speak to the importance of technologization and impacts on young children. The false dichotomy that is manifested when technology is considered as a structured indoor experience and outdoor play as free or unstructured play can be overcome by conceptualising technology as more than a passive screen media lens and incorporating digital resources such as a GPS, compasses, microscopes, or cameras/video to support sustainability education. The role of the educator remains paramount here as the research [3] highlights the importance of educator pedagogy in facilitating interactive, learner-centred opportunities that not only enable investigative, action-adapted learning but also foster independent learners who are responsive to their natural environment and a knowledge of sustainable practices.

1.3. Sustainability Teaching and Learning in ECEC Nature-Based Contexts

There has been considerable discourse regarding Education for Sustainability (EfS) in ECEC scholarship. The intent here is not to provide a breadth of consideration to this discourse but rather to focus on how ECEC curricula define and regard the implementation of EfS. It is important to briefly highlight how EfS is defined in the literature to establish its premise in ECEC. Early childhood education for sustainability (ECEfS) is, according to Davis [38] (p. 28) [39] (p. 22), ‘the enactment of transformative, empowering and participative education around sustainability issues, topics and experiences within an early childhood setting’. EfS has been primarily informed by organising principles of ecological systems, societal values, and future actions [40]. Davis [41] (p. 230) comments that ECEfS is transformative education ‘that encourages children to be problem seekers, problem solvers, and action takers in their own environments.’ Pivotal to the scholarship of EfS is Davis and Elliott’s [42] seminal consideration of this important theme in ECEC. They view children as ‘agentic, with rights to participate fully in society and voice their concerns’ [42] (p. 20). EfS in ECEC is formed through its ‘transformative, empowering and participative’ nature that focuses on matters that are diverse and influence a breadth of community contexts [42]. Importantly, in the context of this paper which seeks to highlight the problematization of technology impeding on children’s learning in nature-based contexts, Hughes and colleagues [30] have noted that despite children being fascinated with digital technologies they can be as equally fascinated with the forms of hands-on exploration of their local, natural world [42]. The view of technology, as the ‘nemesis of outdoor play’ (p. 20) yet having an important role to play in ECEC, can potentially be a catalyst in ECEC for EfS, as digital literacy is a vital skill needed in today’s world, particularly when curricula recognise the distinctions and intersections between sustainability education and technology.

Blue spaces provide one avenue for sustainability education to be built into educator programs as part of a growing focus on, for example, the STEM education opportunities afforded in nature and the ‘scientific and technological solutions to sustainability issues’ [38] (p. 1). STEM knowledge, skills, and understanding are intertwined with sustainability issues and problems and provide valuable learning opportunities for children who play in blue spaces [40]. The combination of STEM and sustainability knowledges can be applied to challenge children to act locally and responsibly to develop their own individual actions that confront environmental issues in a meaningful way [40].

2. Theoretical Framing

The EYLF has challenged educators to seek out opportunities to take children into natural environments for teaching and learning purposes [8]. The EYLF promotes and encourages educators to regularly provide engaging outdoor experiences in contexts like coastal environments as a way for children to learn through play. Sustainability is inextricably linked to the environment [43] and the natural world and its ecosystems, and UNESCO’s [44] work on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) informs how sustainability education is embedded into ECEC through the EYLF.

The EYLF’s [8] role as the primary guiding curriculum document for ECEC practitioners makes it a critical text particularly when considering the importance that is placed upon sustainability education within the document. Sustainability is recognised as one of eight Principles that ‘reflect contemporary theories, perspectives and research evidence concerning children’s learning and early childhood pedagogy’ [8] (p. 14). Sitting alongside sustainability in the EYLF are the remaining seven principles of secure, respectful and reciprocal relationships; partnerships; respect for diversity; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives; equity, inclusion and high expectations; critical reflection and ongoing professional learning; and collaborative leadership and teamwork as key criteria that assist all children to meet the EYLF’s five Learning Outcomes [8]. We have elected to theoretically frame this paper according to the EYLF principle of sustainability and the research that underlies the EYLF.

The EYLF’s [8] prioritising of sustainability education is founded on the outcomes of the 1987 Brundtland Report, which promotes ‘the needs of today’s generation while not compromising future generation’s needs’ [8] (p. 68) and on the sustainability work associated with UNESCO [44]. To theoretically frame this paper and its findings, we draw upon the three dimensions of contemporary understandings of sustainability initially suggested by Brown and colleagues [45] that have been embedded within the EYLF: environmental, social, and economic sustainability. These ‘three pillars’ have become commonplace in much of the sustainability discourse [45]. When revising the EYLF in 2022, its authors were influenced by UNESCO’s [44] work who, as an organisation, have played a pivotal role in defining sustainability and whose four dimensions of sustainability include Brown and colleagues’ [45] three pillars with the addition of the ‘political’ dimension (and the environmental renamed as the ‘natural’) [43]. The fact that the ‘UNESCO framework represents a holistic and integrated approach to sustainability’ [43] (p. 15) has seen the three dimensions adopted within the EYLF which have been meritorious in providing educators with clear guidelines as to the underlying principles of sustainability education. Helpful in clarifying the underlying contexts for the three dimensions of sustainability education taken up in the EYLF are the definitions Brown and colleagues [45] provided for Environmental or ‘Ecological’ sustainability, the focus on the ‘continued productivity and functioning of ecosystems (and) … protection of genetic resources and the conservation of biological diversity’; Social sustainability, as concerned with the ‘continued satisfaction of basic human needs of individuals’; and Economic sustainability, as resolving ‘the limitations that a sustainable society must place on economic growth’ [45] (pp. 716–717).

Despite the work of Brown and colleagues [45] in clarifying the origins of the notion of the ‘three pillars of sustainability’, elsewhere others have argued that the foundations of the three-pillar model are unclear, even contested [46]. Purvis and colleagues argue ‘that the early literature considering the pillars may be split broadly between those who view the three as distinct perspectives, and those who take a systems approach [46] (p. 692).’ Despite these nuances, the EYLF provides a strong base upon which to consider sustainability education through its definitions of the three dimensions or ‘pillars’, allowing us to frame this paper’s findings. We employ these definitions here, along with an overview of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), to define how the three dimensions of sustainability are relevant to this discussion of nature play in blue spaces.

Environmental sustainability focuses on caring for the natural world. It helps children to see their role within a greater ecosystem and their place in preserving, protecting, and improving the environment [8] (p. 17). This aligns with SDGs such as Clean Water and Sanitation that ensures care for the natural world through sustainable water management and sanitation, and Life Below Water which focuses on conservation and sustainable use of oceans, seas, and marine environments [47].

Social sustainability addresses issues of social justice and equity, respect for diversity and inclusion, active citizenship, and sense of community. It supports young children to gain a sense of what it means to live peacefully, fairly, and respectfully together in resilient local and global communities [8] (p. 17). This aligns with SDGs such as Gender Equality for girls and women and Quality Education that promotes equity and lifelong learning [47].

Economic sustainability focuses on fair and equitable access to resources, conserving resources and reducing consumption and waste. Practices assisting economic development without negatively impacting social and environmental sustainability are highlighted, which include focusing on fair and equitable access to resources, resource conservation and consumption, and waste reduction [8] (p. 17). This aligns to the SDG for responsible consumption and production where we reduce waste and make better choices regarding climate change and biodiversity loss [47].

While each dimension plays an important role in guiding educators in how sustainability education can be imagined, all three are necessarily interconnected if we are to achieve a sustainable planet [46]. Therefore, it is through the lens of these three sustainability dimensions that we consider how sustainability education can proliferate in a world of technologization while extricating technology from blue spaces when they are being utilised as teaching and learning contexts.

3. Methodology

The study adopted an ethnographic approach as we sought to deepen understandings of the behaviours, sociality, and culture [48] of participants in a nature-based ECEC setting. Ethnography applied as an education research methodology is appropriate to studies that take place over extended periods, including longitudinal studies [49]. Ethnographic research often sees the researcher immersed in the field [50] seeking to embed themselves in the social-cultural events occurring in a classroom amongst educators and children. By becoming a member of a group, such as a class, the researcher can develop strong ties to the participants and trust between participants builds leading to deep understandings of the context and the events taking place [51]. Often, the ethnographer will undertake research without a defined outcome in mind as social and cultural contexts can emerge and change and adapt during the research [51]. The changing nature of the field sites makes it important that the researcher is flexible [48] because the time spent in the field can lead to unexpected lines of inquiry emerging [50]. Central to ethnography is the method of participant observation [48]. Much like the changing nature of a nature-based education context as a blue space, where the landscape can alter and children’s play be influenced by tide and seasons, the researcher similarly alternates between observing events around them and being drawn into the beach kinder session as an active participant [50].

This project had its origins in, and sought to deepen understandings of, science teaching and learning occurring in nature-based ECEC contexts (bush kinders) in 2015 [13]. Originally titled ‘Bush kinders: Locating the Science’, the research grew over time as other lines of enquiry became apparent from its science focus through additional time spent conducting fieldwork. We conducted nature-based kinder visits (bush and beach) and undertook interviews with educators in 2017, 2020, and 2023. The study remained focused on science during 2017, but as we observed more teaching and learning, we sought to develop our understanding of children’s creativity in nature-based ECEC [52]. As part of our investigation, we also came to realise during 2017 the importance of technological tools for the educators to inform their practice and knowledge of local habitats. In 2020, teacher pedagogy was an additional focus, as was how educators teach science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) both as individual domains and in an integrated manner. In 2023, risky play and how educators undertake the assessment of children’s STEM learning became foci of the research, and it also became evident the educators had greater knowledge of how to apply technology as part of their teaching practice yet foster the removal of technology from the children’s nature play, leaving them reliant only on what was in nature to facilitate play. Our awareness of the delineation between nature play and technology use and a revision of the data collected across the years of fieldwork led to the focused considerations of the impact of technologization in nature-play contexts in this paper.

There were limited bush kinders operating in Australia at the outset of this study [20]. This impacted on the choice of research field-sites, and only a small number have access to blue spaces due to the blue space being nearby. Often these bush or beach kinders were in areas of high privilege [53] where technology access is not an issue for families. The ethnographic approach to this study was meritorious due to many of the bush kinder educators who supported this research becoming regular informants over the duration of the study. We were warmly welcomed to be active participants at the bush kinder sessions that took place in parklands, forests, and paddocks. In 2017 we were invited to attend ‘beach kinder’ with one group whose program was conducted in a small coastal town. By 2023, other bush kinders who had previously participated in this research were also using blue spaces as a place for nature play-based teaching and learning. The groups that have participated in this study since 2015 were selected primarily because they were involved in an expanding and ambitious program of bush kinder development and because bush kinders were not a dominant feature of many kinder programs—limiting the depth of the research. In addition, it was fortuitous that they were close to the researcher’s university. For this study, they were known by the researchers to incorporate blue spaces as a component of their kindergarten program.

3.1. Participants

Across the length of the study, three kinders, encompassing four groups, participated in the research, providing access to approximately 100 children and 12–16 educators each year (note—most educators were the same from year to year). Three to four educators and up to 25 children participate in a beach kinder session which can run from between three and five hours. Educators carry devices such as iPhones to contact families in case of emergencies such as a rapid change in weather conditions or a child suffering an injury, but they can also be used for photography. The children play and learn while experiencing seasonal changes with different plants and animals present [54]. The children must depend only on what is available at the bush kinder for their play-based learning, as artificial and synthetic materials are rarely provided, and technological devices are not available for the children during the session [26]. The beach kinder sessions we observed occurred weekly at the same outdoor setting in almost all types of weather [20]. The group meets at a designated drop-off place near the beach. Once all had arrived, they walk along the sand and rocks to find a place to play. The play space was often determined by the tidal and the general weather conditions as on occasions the amount of sand available was reduced by a high tide. At lower tides, long tracts of sandy beach were available, as well as exposed rock pools and outcrops, allowing the children to explore and engage with marine life. The children’s beach play is generally reliant only on the application of natural materials or ‘loose parts’ [55], that is, moveable materials and equipment to facilitate child-led play, such as shells, sands, and driftwood.

Of the six bush kinder groups who have participated in this study over time, three use beach settings in their program and for one school term (10 weeks) per year. The beach programs observed did not have a specific focus, and the educators did not prepare activities for the children [20]. The children would arrive at the site then immediately commence play for the duration of the session, only stopping to eat or visit a toilet. Educators applied an emergent curriculum [21], that is, teaching at point of need, during children’s nature play.

University ethics and regulatory bodies’ approval was gained for the study (Deakin University 2024-033), and procedures were put in place following Human Research Ethics protocols. Research participation was voluntary and signed consent from the kindergarten organisation, its educators, and its parents were obtained using the University’s formats. Children were introduced to us, and they all assented to us being present, observing, and being actively involved in the session. The children were always given the option of excluding themselves from any observation, discussion, or videoing, and we asked the children on all occasions if it was ‘OK to be part of your play’. All names of individuals and places used in this paper are pseudonyms.

3.2. Data Collection

Approximately 30 h was devoted to fieldwork in blue learning spaces in 2017 and then a further 75 h in 2023. The longitudinal nature of the study, with its four different periods of data collection, allowed us to obtain a breadth of data which we seek to represent in this paper. Despite the eight years space between fieldwork, the time we spent both in 2017 and 2023 gave us rich insights into the teaching and learning taking place. To comprehend how technologization and beach kinder sessions intersect, data was generated by drawing upon what Madden [48] (p. 25) describes as a ‘toolkit’ of research methods. Our field notes were often recorded upon returning from the beach in journals, stimulated by photographs taken during the sessions. The data logs provided documentary evidence of our researcher positionality as participant observers in which, at times, we would be removed from the play, and at other times we would become actively involved in the learning [48]. Images, such as those used in this paper, and the quotes applied here, are drawn from informal conversations between children, educators, and us. These were captured on iPads and handheld voice recorders, and the photographs used here were taken in 2017 and 2023 during six and twelve beach kinder visitations, respectively.

At times, during the research, we conducted our observation some distance from the children, between 5 and 20 m, making sure the children and educators we were observing remained in view. Sometimes maintaining this distance was difficult as we were included by the children in their play. We moved roles between observer and participant through the level of involvement in the activity transpiring around us [50]. Sometimes we would be beckoned to help decorate sand drawings with seaweed, to wade into the water, to climb rocks, and help draw patterns in the sand with sticks.

3.3. Data Analysis

To analyse the data, a deductive thematic analysis approach [56] has been applied. Having become aware of the three categories of sustainability through preliminary reading, we applied these categories as themes to analyse what was evident in our data. Journal notes from the fieldwork were reviewed specifically looking for examples of the application of technology to support the children’s sustainability learning but not examples of the children using technology. To validate our analysis of the data and its relevance and appropriateness to the research question, we sampled our data using a selective approach [56], reviewing myriad examples of the learning we had witnessed in beach kinders from our research journals. We agreed upon the appropriateness of our data to be applied in the paper, with author one analysing the data and author two triangulating [57] the analysis using the framework author one applied to confirm the appropriateness of the original analysis. The reading of what had been documented in the journals, both our notes and photographs, allowed for us to actively develop meaning from the data. Through this deductive approach to the analysis and applying the definitions of sustainability learning as a tool we could test, refute, or confirm our hypothesis that children were experiencing different forms of sustainability education in blue spaces. Through deductive orientation in reflexive thematic analysis, the ‘preexisting theory’ of types of sustainability could be applied ‘as a lens through which to interpret the data’ [56] (p. 8). Then, vignettes detailing the activity taking place around the researcher were written out to provide examples of how the educators deepened children’s sustainability understandings using technological devices. The vignettes are a randomly chosen cross section of data from many dozens of examples as a support to this paper’s narrative and are representative of the sustainability learning that would occur during the beach kinder session. They were chosen as they are representative of the learning in action and how the educators’ experiences of the teaching and learning can develop through an inquiry-based approach within a beach kinder.

4. Findings

Key to the findings in this paper is the decision by beach kinder educators to remove technological devices from children’s nature play. As beach kinders were a new idea, educators were reluctant to change the natural environment with the addition of any other things such as tools and toys. The vignettes provided below each describe our observations and how educators use technological devices before, during, or after a beach kinder session to support children’s sustainability learning. The vignettes are categorised according to the three dimensions of sustainability initially drawn from UNESCO [44], then later embedded into the EYLF [8], environmental, social, and economic sustainability, and how these occur during a beach kinder session. We begin with what could be considered as the most prevalent form of sustainability education that occurs in nature-based education, environmental sustainability.

4.1. Environmental Sustainability

Environmental sustainability focuses on caring for the natural world. This premise, that they should care for the environment, is consistently reinforced to the children at beach kinder. Children are positioned as having a place within the ecosystem in which they are learning, and their responsibility to be stewards of the natural world is charged with preserving, protecting, and improving the environment. We provide two short examples of how this can take place and situate how the educators use technology to support the children’s learning while not actively providing technology to the children.

4.1.1. Vignette 1: Rock Pool Exploration

Children are rarely provided with implements during a beach kinder session, yet on this day, a marine biologist was a guest at the session. They had come to talk to the children about what living and non-living things exist in the nearby rock pools. Maree, the lead educator, mentioned to me she had chosen today as she had made sure that the tide was at a low ebb and the rock pools were exposed. The biologist had several buckets, each with water and different items in each of the buckets. As I sat next to Maree, she quietly spoke to me about the starfish which were commonly found in the rockpools and that the children would be allowed to go on a ‘rock pool ramble’ once the biologist left. The marine biologist took a starfish out of a bucket and let the children feel its texture. I was curious to know what type of starfish and asked Maree if she knew. Maree took out her phone and drew my attention to an app that showed all the local marine creatures. She explained to me that she would often use this during the beach kinder session when she lacked knowledge in explaining to the children the living things they discovered. In another bucket was a shark’s egg casing, and one child said, ‘I’ve seen those before on the beach’, which Maree explained were often found on the sand and washed onto the shoreline. Maree told the children that ‘the casing was made from the same material as our hair and fingernails’. This excited the children who wanted to know what was in the other buckets.

4.1.2. Vignette 2: The Blue Creature with a Sail

Andrea was walking along the beach with her beach kinder group of 16 children. On this day, the sea was calm and only occasional small waves broke on the shoreline, making it possible for the children to safely walk in the water. A few of the children had removed their shoes and socks, keen to play in the shallow water. One child noticed a small blue animal on the surface of the water. The animal was about 3–4 cm long and had a semi-transparent body. The child called to Andrea ‘look what I have found’ and a group of children gathered around, some intrigued but not sure whether to step into the water, keeping a safe distance. Andrea carefully picked up the animal, cupping her hands to the animal; it was still in some water, and she explained to the children what it was. A ‘By-the-wind sailor’ or Vellela was a native animal to these waters, but it could cause a small sting if handled roughly. Sarah explained that ‘as a person who goes to the beach a lot, I have seen lots of these, and I have done some research on what they are.’ Sarah went on to explain that ‘the sail they could see was a way for the animal to move around but you must be careful of the tentacles’.

4.2. Social Sustainability

Social sustainability supports young children’s development of understanding how to coexist peacefully, fairly, and respectfully in their community. Amongst a group of 20 or more children, different play dynamics form. On some occasions disputes arose among the children when wanting to use natural resources or in determining the makeup of social play groups. Building a sense of community within the beach kinder group generally ensures harmonious relationships built on fairness and respect. Role modelling these behaviours can lead to sense of equity in local and global communities as we witnessed on two occasions during a beach kinder session.

4.2.1. Vignette 3: Group Play at Beach Kinder

Cassandra had often wondered about the changing dynamics that occur between children when they interact at beach kinder. As I sat with Cassandra on the sand watching the children, she remarked to me that ‘look at those four children, they struggle to play nicely back at the kinder, in fact, at times there are some real tensions between them, so they have to play apart’. I commented to her, ‘how do you capture these changing dynamics?’ She mentioned that all the families had consented to her taking pictures of the children at play and there were times when taking pictures of the children at play allowed her to document how the group play changed and for her to see ‘which child played with which child.’ Cassandra had been documenting these play dynamics over time, to meet the Curriculum Framework and reporting. Then, she took out her phone and began to take photos.

4.2.2. Vignette 4: Whose Stick Is It?

It was evident that two children were having a disagreement. A stick had fallen from a tree and one child, who had found the stick, had been using the stick to dig a hole. The stick was effective in its purpose as the child had a sizable hole in the sand. The child had put the stick down and moved away briefly to get something to eat. While the stick was on the ground another child picked up the stick and started waving it around, pretending to be Harry Potter with his wand. An argument ensued as the stick’s first owner said, ‘give me back my stick, it’s mine’. For the next two minutes the disagreement escalated until the point at which an attempt was made by one child to hit the other with the stick. Anna, the educator, quickly intervened. She sat both children down and explained to them that there were many sticks for them to choose from, but both children refused to give up the stick. Then Anna decided to show the second child (Harry Potter) that the stick did not look like Harry’s wand and that he should hand the stick back. Using her phone, she found an image of the wand and set the child off to find a stick that looked more like Harry Potter’s wand. A sense of harmony returned to the beach kinder session and the children went back to their play.

4.3. Economic Sustainability

Economic sustainability equates to fair and equitable access to resources, which at beach kinder sessions is characterised by the natural resources available for play. While loose parts are often abundant, children can become enamoured with a particular stick, or shells and fresh drinking water can be limited. When beach kinder sessions run for over five hours, children become hungry, and managing food waste can be an issue for educators. In two vignettes, we reflect on our observations of how educators respond to children’s fair and equitable use of resources and how resource consumption is supported by technology use.

4.3.1. Vignette 5: Using Resources Fair and Equitably

Children who attend beach kinder are required to bring sufficient food to eat for the day and a flask or small container with water to drink. Australian blue spaces, despite having an abundance of sea water, can at times lack access to fresh drinking water. At one beach kinder site we observed, water taps or faucets were not readily available, so the educators had a responsibility to educate children on consuming the resources they bring for the day in a responsible manner. One child wanted to eat all their food upon arrival, but the educators negotiated with that child letting them eat a piece of fruit but no more of their food. Taking their own water bottles and managing their water use is an important focus for the children particularly, as in some places there is little or no fresh water to drink. Sunrise beach kinder group would carry a large container that had water to drink and wash children’s hands before eating. The children could refill their water flasks if necessary. I asked Kerri-Anne, one of the educators, if they had ever run out of water, and she replied, ‘yes, one day a child left the tap running and all the water ran out (of the container). She continued ‘It is lucky, we had done a Google search when we first started coming to this beach kinder site to find out where the nearest water taps were if there was an emergency. We had to walk and fill the container and I tell you, carrying a 20-litre water container was not a lot of fun so we are extra diligent now to ensure the tap is turned off.’ The educators particularly reinforce the idea with the children that the source of water is limited and the children need to respect their use of it.

4.3.2. Vignette 6: More than Money

Shells and rocks can have a multitude of purposes for children’s nature-play. While they are often used for purposes more suited to technological tools such as digging sand or reinforcing sand tunnels or decorating drawings in the sand, one group of children decided they wanted to open a shop and sell necklaces and bracelets they had constructed from seaweed. The group of four children were reticent to part with their seaweed jewellery, and as I sat and watched, two other children approached and asked if they could have a necklace each. ‘Can we please have a necklace to play with?’ asked one child. One of the group of four said ‘No, they are ours.’ But then another said, we need some shells and rocks to help us make more necklaces, you can buy a necklace if you bring us five shells and three rocks.’ The other child who wanted to purchase a necklace asked, ‘is that how much it costs?’ The reply came quickly ‘yes.’ So, the two children ran off in search of the shells and rocks needed to purchase the necklaces. I walked over to Cassandra and asked her ‘it is regular behaviour for these children to use shells to purchase items during their nature-play. Cassandra replied ‘funnily enough, we have been talking about money at kindergarten, and I showed the children a video. We’ve been playing a counting game and some of the children have been using iPads at home to learn about money.’

5. Discussion

Time spent in blue spaces which are used as beach kinder sites are often places where young children do not require access to technology. Yet, technology plays a critical role in supporting educator practice in a variety of ways. Through their nature play, the children learn from the environment, and technologization of their world can be set aside for the day while they immerse themselves in a blue space. The importance of the role of the educators cannot be understated though, as they have a responsibility to respond to the learning environment by developing their own knowledge through linking with technological devices. Our cross-sectional data, captured in the six vignettes, demonstrate how technological devices necessitate immediate responses to children’s inquiries about things they see or find in blue spaces. Critical to understanding how teaching and learning in nature occurs is that the focus is not on children using the technical tools, but rather the teacher’s intentional teaching by applying them to aid children’s inquiries. Also, further to this point is that teachers will often leave a site at the end of the session and undertake their own research so that they can better help the children’s growing knowledge in future sessions. We now consider each of the three sustainability categories further in relation to the vignettes.

5.1. Environmental Sustainability

Blue spaces play an important role in sustainability education as they have an abundance of living and non-living things that children can engage with. Educators play a critical role in supporting children in understanding their role in protecting the environment for future generations [8,9,58]. Aspiring to empower young children to participate in sustainability learning by providing opportunities to enact sustainability experiences within an early childhood setting is pivotal to aligning educator practice with the EYLF [59]. Learning in blue spaces becomes richer when the organising principles of ecological systems, societal values, and future actions are embedded into educator practice [40]. It is therefore critical that educators are cognisant of SDGs [47] as part of their practice, and understandings of water (Clean Water and Sanitation) and marine environments (Life Below Water) are paramount to this knowledge. The data as evidenced in vignettes one and two demonstrate children and educators combining to act as protectors and preservers of the marine environment; this forms a critical element of beach kinder learning. These functioning ecosystems [45] and the children’s immersion within the marine environment offer sustainability learning in the moment; the sensory opportunities the children gather bring the blue space to life and give the children a sense of biological diversity that shapes children’s ecological identity through knowledge building [1] amongst the blue space.

The data also highlights that understanding the biodiversity evident in a rock pool and the ocean provide rich learning opportunities, yet what is critical to children’s building of understandings of the environment is the educator’s knowledge. The actions of the educators and children align with earlier definitions of environmental sustainability from Brown and colleagues [45], as the time spent at beach kinder allows the children to focus on how the local ecosystems function and the ways to conserve the biological diversity of the blue space.

The situation that can also be drawn from the data is that technology is necessary for educators to scaffold learning that consolidates environmental sustainability knowledge in young children. Using technological devices to understand the tidal position is critical as educators need to understand what natural resources will be available to them on the day of the beach kinder session. Andrea’s knowledge of how to gently handle the ‘By-the-wind’ Sailor was gained through experience but also confirmed using technology. Demonstrating how to care for living and non-living things played an important part in translating the knowledge gained through technologization of educator practice.

5.2. Social Sustainability

Young children can gain a sense of community by participating in an early childhood service such as a kindergarten or preschool. Yet, within that community of young people, disagreements can arise over learning resources and group dynamics as evidenced in the vignettes that articulate how children’s social interactions occur in a blue space. As I sat with Cassandra, and she remarked that tensions existed between some children at the regular kindergarten that were alleviated by time spent in the blue space, it pointed to how social sustainability can be embraced and aligned to the EYLF [8]. The children also further develop their ecological identity through reverence building [1] and respect for inclusion that could be fostered by the interactions we observed. The beginnings of children’s understanding of diversity in what other children desire from their play became apparent as they attune their actions to the local ecology. Brown and colleagues [45] conceptualisation of social sustainability becomes apparent, as a dispute over the ownership of a resource and time spent in blue spaces can give educators time to reinforce quality education that promotes equity and lifelong learning as considered in the SDGs [47]. In this case, a stick that was the centre of disputed property provided the educator an opportunity to model dispute resolution that, once resolved, ensured social sustainability within a sense of peace and harmony that returned to the beach kinder community and that a fair and respectful outcome for both children was facilitated by the educator.

5.3. Economic Sustainability

In considering economic sustainability, it is important to note the dichotomy we faced here while delineating our data. An important element to developing knowledge of sustainable economic practices is the focus on fair and equitable access to resources as outlined in the EYLF definition of economic sustainability [8]. This issue of the overlap in the data arose during our data analysis as two of the sustainability themes merged in one vignette. We realised that we had an example in vignette four of social sustainability intersecting with economic sustainability as two children disagreed over the use of a stick. This provided an important point that the three types of sustainability can overlap and should not always be viewed as separate entities [46]. The children’s interaction and how sustainability plays an important role in educator practice became evident through resource allocation. We were challenged to consider how educators deal fairly with managing the economic resources multiple children wish to use for play. Then, we were also drawn to how Anna, the educator, was applying social sustainable practices by being able to diffuse and resolve the situation and ensure both children were happily engaged in their nature play.

Economic sustainability also gives children a sense of the importance of conservation, consumption, and waste. Through the observations articulated in the vignettes, we can understand that young children respond to economic sustainability in several ways. The SDG that focuses on responsible consumption and production where we reduce waste [47] became evident as the value of resources such as fresh water in vignette five becomes paramount at a time when limited fresh water supplies are available globally. This has particular importance for children to deepen their understanding of conservation during times of drought which the Australian continent regularly experience. The valuable learning associated with being in a blue space and connecting this to economic sustainability supports children to begin to understand some of the limits we have in managing resources [45]. This consideration of conservation leads to children becoming responsible consumers and has other real-world applications in activities such as gardening and building sustainable livelihoods [8]. Understanding how currency works through role-playing situations as described in vignette six encourages children’s promotion of economic wellbeing and the necessity of currency in the present-day world for trade and also builds basic principles of economics such as saving, spending wisely, trading, and understanding how economic decisions can impact them [8]. The educator’s use of technology is also critical to the success of the children’s nature play, as the knowledge of where resources are available and taking learning to and from the classroom into the environment so it can play an important role in building children’s sustainability knowledge is evidenced here [40].

5.4. Setting Aside Technologization in Early Childhood Sustainability Education

Despite the differences in opinion with utilising digital technologies in nature-based contexts [28], our findings demonstrate that educators benefit from using devices as part of their teaching to support children’s learning in blue spaces. The educators described in the vignettes show that the implementation of the devices, in different ways that technologizes their teaching practices in nature, can support sustainability education. At times, devices are helpful to quickly and accurately identify living and non-living things in nature that form part of environmental sustainability learning for young children. At other times using technological devices is valuable to capture images of children’s play and learning that can constitute economic sustainability where resource use needs and uses are being considered. As described in the vignette, technology is also used to maintain social sustainability within the beach kinder community and can be beneficial in allowing educators to consider and manage children’s actions and behaviours. Yet, in all instances, the impact of technology and the technologization is, for the period when the children are in the context of the blue space, one where technology is removed from them. It gives the children time to withdraw from the technological world of digital devices and learn through play.

Past research has confirmed that in most Australian beach kinders educators rely solely on what nature provides the children for play and technology takes no part in nature-based teaching and learning [20]. We seek through the findings here to confirm the validity of earlier research but also seek to deepen our understanding of the connection between nature-based contexts, the use of technology, and how sustainability education occurs. The educators described here avoid introducing technology into the children’s play, circumventing what House [27] described as playing a game of ‘Russian Roulette’. The distraction of incorporating technology may lead to what House [27] views as an impediment to children being in touch with nature. The time spent at a beach kinder session should enrich a child’s senses and immerse them in the world around them [27], and the learning, particularly of environmental sustainability, can take place without technologization of a child’s world. The time spent investigating rock pools or learning about marine creatures adjacent to the shoreline supports deepening young children’s understanding of the environment. This time spent in blue spaces highlights what differentiates them from green spaces. The different living things and the access to vast bodies of water in blue spaces bring dangers and learning opportunities that cannot be found in forests and parklands.

Asmayawati’s [32] (p. 17) position that young children’s social and emotional development is disrupted by ‘uncontrolled use of gadgets’ is addressed by the lack of access to technological devices during a beach kinder session. Allowing for time to form the healthy social skills without the intrusion of technology can then take place and children can garner a deeper sense of social sustainability. Time spent in blue spaces as a learning context can be viewed as a reaction to the encroachment of technology on young children’s lives, yet the benefits for children’s experience of the three pillars of sustainability education as described in the EYLF [8] abound and are evident in the findings provided here.

6. Conclusions

While we do not denigrate the benefits of the technologization of the present-day world, we advocate for a time in a child’s life when they can set aside devices and connect with the world around them. Our aim here has been to demonstrate that providing young children with the opportunity to be removed, for a time, from the technologization of the world and inhabit a blue space gives them time to build understandings of environmental, social, and economic sustainability. This paper has sought to highlight the benefits for educators of taking technological devices into the outdoors to assist with teaching and to access information regarding what exists in nature and to enhance sustainability education. Educators can, as Waern and colleagues describe [34], draw on devices to build children’s competencies and agencies when in nature while also fostering connection to the environment. In terms of the benefits of using technology in nature-based learning, this paper supports Johnston’s and Highfield’s [36] belief that technology and outdoor play in early childhood provide the mechanism for children’s autonomy and agency in their learning experiences but that the technology can be left in the hands of the educator as we have witnessed during this research. The research therefore highlights the importance of the educator in the development of interactive, learner-centred opportunities that not only enable investigative, action-adapted learning but also foster independent learners who are responsive to their natural environment.

The implication of this research is that further considerations of technologization and children’s environmental agency through a play-based, emergent curriculum are necessary. The study’s longitudinal nature has been able to capture the changing nature of the educator role over time, and while this is a strength, more consideration of how technology can be applied in blue spaces as learning contexts is necessary. A longitudinal study specific to educator practice is one option available, as importantly, early childhood education plays a crucial role in instilling values of sustainability and helping children understand their responsibilities and the importance of social responsibility. These approaches not only teach children about economic sustainability but also foster their understanding of social and environmental issues, yet we remain cognisant of issues concerning equity to accessing technology which adds a layer of complexity to research on blue spaces. Blue spaces in major cities often are linked to a sense of privilege (homes near the beach typically command high prices), and away from these locations, access to technology can be an issue to some families and children. These complexities surrounding ‘technologization’ of education remain an area for consideration. Therefore, further studies into the intersection of technology and sustainability education are needed to inform the discourse on these issues. Exploring a breadth of differing contexts would also be a benefit to educators and to policy makers who, in the future, may need to re-assess the use of technology in a world where it continues to pervade children’s lives.