Australian Preservice Early Childhood Teachers’ Considerations of Natural Areas as Conducive and Important to Include in Educational Experiences
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- To identify the outdoor environments preservice teachers consider conducive to education;
- To consider whether preservice teachers preferred outdoor environments are associate with their perceptions of environments conducive to education;
- To consider whether environments preservice teachers avoid are considered not conducive to education;
- Identify predictors for preservice teachers to anticipate use of nature areas for education in their future work;
- Understand whether preservice teachers’ preferences for spending time outdoors is related to perceived benefits of education in nature;
- To determine whether there is a relationship between the age-group preservice teachers intend to work with and perceived benefits of education in nature.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
2.2. Research Instrument
2.3. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Outdoor Environments Considered Most and Least Conducive to Achieving Educational Outcomes
3.2. Personal Preferences and Selection of Environments Based on Educational Outcomes
3.3. Environments Likely to Be Selected for Educational Opportunities
3.4. Relationship between Environments Likely to Be Selected and Anticipation Educational Outcomes
3.5. Relationships with Participant Characteristics
3.6. Relationships with Selected Age/Grade for Teaching
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Likert Scale Questions
- 1.
- Please indicate how likely you are to use natural areas for educational opportunities with your future early childhood students (natural areas = outdoor environments that range from relatively natural to wild, as opposed to maintained/developed spaces such as mowed grassy areas, landscaped park settings, playgrounds, etc.).
- 2.
- How difficult do you perceive it will be to use natural areas for educational opportunities with your future early childhood students?
- 3.
- Please indicate how likely you are to use maintained outdoor environments for educational opportunities with your future early childhood students (landscaped school yards, mowed grassy areas, landscaped park settings, playgrounds, etc.).
- 4.
- Please rate the extent to which you agree/disagree with each of the following statements. There are no correct or preferred responses. Please respond based on your opinion, not based on how others might respond.
experiences in nature are important for children’s: | strongly disagree | neither agree | strongly disagree | disagree agreeor | or agree |
Cognitive development | O | O | O | O | O |
Socio-emotional development | O | O | O | O | O |
Physical development | O | O | O | O | O |
Overall health and wellness (mental and physical) | O | O | O | O | O |
Development of appreciation for the environment | O | O | O | O | O |
Nature experiences belong within the formal school setting. | O | O | O | O | O |
References
- Waller, T.; Ärlemalm-Hagsér, E.; Sandseter, E.B.H.; Lee-Hammond, L.; Lekies, K.; Wyver, S. Introduction. In The Sage Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning; Waller, T., Ärlemalm-Hagsér, E., Sandseter, E.B.H., Lee-Hammond, L., Lekies, K., Wyver, S., Eds.; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017; pp. 1–23. [Google Scholar]
- Witten, K.; Kearns, R.; Carroll, P.; Asiasiga, L.; Tava’e, N. New Zealand parents’ understandings of the intergenerational decline in children’s independent outdoor play and active travel. Child. Geogr. 2013, 11, 215–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kahn, P.H.; Weiss, T. The importance of children interacting with big nature. Child. Youth Environ. 2017, 27, 7–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ball, D.J.; Brussoni, M.; Gill, T.R.; Harbottle, H.; Spiegal, B. Avoiding a dystopian future for children’s play. Int. J. Play 2019, 8, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, H.; Tamminen, K.A.; Clark, A.M.; Slater, L.; Spence, J.C.; Holt, N.L. A meta-study of qualitative research examining determinants of children’s independent active free play. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2015, 12, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mygind, L.; Stevenson, M.P.; Liebst, L.S.; Konvalinka, I.; Bentsen, P. Stress response and cognitive performance modulation in classroom versus natural environments: A quasi-experimental pilot study with children. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Preuß, M.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M.; Marquez, S.; Cirach, M.; Dadvand, P.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Gidlow, C.; Crazuleviciene, R.; Kruize, H.; Zijlema, W. Low childhood nature exposure is associated with worse mental health in adulthood. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gill, T. The benefits of children’s engagement with nature: A systematic literature review. Child. Youth Environ. 2014, 24, 10–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elliott, S. An Australian perspective: Seeking sustainability in early childhood outdoor play spaces. In The Sage Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning; Waller, T., Ärlemalm-Hagsér, E., Sandseter, E.B.H., Lee-Hammond, L., Lekies, K., Wyver, S., Eds.; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017; pp. 295–316. [Google Scholar]
- Torquati, J.; Cutler, K.; Gilkerson, D.; Sarver, S. Early childhood educators’ perceptions of nature, science, and environmental education. Early Educ. Dev. 2013, 24, 721–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elliott, S.; Davis, J. Exploring the resistance: An Australian perspective on educating for sustainability in early childhood. Int. J. Early Child. 2009, 41, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dyment, J.E.; Davis, J.M.; Nailon, D.; Emery, S.; Getenet, S.; McCrea, N.; Hill, A. The impact of professional development on early childhood educators’ confidence, understanding and knowledge of education for sustainability. Environ. Educ. Res. 2014, 20, 660–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandseter, E.B.H. Affordances for risky play in preschool: The importance of features in the play environment. Early Child. Educ. J. 2009, 36, 439–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Rooijen, M.; Lensvelt-Mulders, G.; Wyver, S.; Duyndam, J. Professional attitudes towards children’s risk-taking in play: Insights into influencing factors in Dutch contexts. J. Adventure Educ. Outdoor Learn. 2020, 20, 138–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brussoni, M.; Gibbons, R.; Gray, C.; Ishikawa, T.; Sandseter, E.B.H.; Bienenstock, A.; Chabot, G.; Fuselli, P.; Herrington, S.; Janssen, I.; et al. What is the relationship between risky outdoor play and health in children? A systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 6423–6454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hyndman, B.P.; Wyver, S. Outdoor Recreation within the School Setting: A Physiological and Psychological Exploration. In Outdoor Recreation-Physiological and Psychological Effects on Health; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lysklett, O.B. Nature preschools in Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Norway: Characteristics and differences. In The Sage Handbook of Outdoor Play and Learning; Waller, T., Ärlemalm-Hagsér, E., Sandseter, E.B.H., Lee-Hammond, L., Lekies, K., Wyver, S., Eds.; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017; pp. 242–250. [Google Scholar]
- Elliott, S.; Chancellor, B. From forest preschool to bush kinder: An inspirational approach to preschool provision in Australia. Australas. J. Early Child. 2014, 39, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandseter, E.B. Restrictive safety or unsafe freedom? Norwegian ECEC practitioners’ perceptions and practices concerning children’s risky play. Child Care Pract. 2012, 18, 83–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kernan, M.; Devine, D. Being confined within? Constructions of the good childhood and outdoor play in early childhood education and care settings in Ireland. Child. Soc. 2010, 24, 371–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torres-Porras, J.; Alcántara-Manzanares, J. Are plants living beings? Biases in the interpretation of landscape features by pre-service teachers. J. Biol. Educ. 2019, 55, 128–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sahin, E.; Alici, S. An associational study on pre-service early childhood teachers’ nature relatedness in education for sustainability. Int. Res. Geogr. Environ. Educ. 2019, 28, 343–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ernst, J.; Tornabene, L. Preservice early childhood educators’ perceptions of outdoor settings as learning environments. Environ. Educ. Res. 2012, 18, 643–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yilmaz, S.; Olgan, R.; Yilmaztekin, E.Ö. Nature connectedness and landscape preferences of Turkish preservice preschool teachers. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 2016, 11, 8120–8142. [Google Scholar]
- Doran, C.M.; Ling, R.; Byrnes, J.; Crane, M.; Shakeshaft, A.P.; Searles, A. Benefit cost analysis of three skin cancer public education mass-media campaigns implemented in New South Wales, Australia. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0147665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCarthy, N. Compulsory helmet laws for cyclists are rare globally. Statista: Hamburg, German 2019. Available online: https://www.statista.com/chart/17527/legal-rules-regarding-helmet-use-for-cyclists/ (accessed on 15 December 2021).
- Peden, A.E.; Franklin, R.C.; Clemens, T. Can child drowning be eradicated? A compelling case for continued investment in prevention. Acta Paediatr. 2021, 11, 2126–2133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veitch, J.; Biggs, N.; Deforche, B.; Timperio, A. What do adults want in parks? A qualitative study using walk-along interviews. BMC Public Health 2022, 22, 753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masiulanis, K. Supporting infrastructure. In How to Grow a Playspace: Development and Design; Masiulanis, K., Cummins, E., Eds.; Routledge: Oxon, UK, 2017; pp. 335–336. [Google Scholar]
- Bundy, A.; Engelen, L.; Wyver, S.; Tranter, P.; Ragen, J.; Bauman, A.; Perry, G. Sydney playground project: A cluster-randomized trial to increase physical activity, play, and social skills. J. Sch. Health 2017, 87, 751–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Copeland, K.A.; Kendeigh, C.A.; Saelens, B.E.; Kalkwarf, H.J.; Sherman, S.N. Physical activity in child-care centers: Do teachers hold the key to the playground? Health Educ. Res. 2012, 27, 81–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lekies, K.S.; Moore, R.H. Promoting transdisciplinary learning through a summer course on climate, water, and agriculture. Nat. Sci. Educ. 2020, 49, e20023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beery, T.; Magntorn, O. Pre-service early childhood educator experience in a UNESCO biosphere reserve. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, J.; Elliott, S. Editors’ Review of Research in Early Childhood Education for Sustainability; International Perspectives and Provocations; Routledge: Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Ernst, J.; McAllister, K.; Siklander, P.; Storli, R. Contributions to Sustainability through Young Children’s Nature Play: A Systematic Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Outdoor Type | Photo Grid Location | Description |
---|---|---|
Park with Fence | First, Line 1 (No.1) | A park including children’s play equipment and large established trees |
Last, Line 4 (No.16) | A sandy surface with sparse, low vegetation. Includes a variety of logs and stones and a climbing structure | |
3rd, Line 3 (No.11) | Established trees, rocks and small climbing structures. Ground includes fallen leaves, soil and dried grass. | |
3rd, Line 4 (No.15) | Established trees, concrete footpath, mulch, grass, ‘managed’ garden, no play equipment | |
Park without Fence | 1st, Line 2 (No.5) | Sand, concrete, grassy incline, large fort with play equipment, bench |
Last, Line 1 (No.4) | Sandy area, with replica boats and climbing ropes + established trees. | |
Last, Line 3 (No.12) | Established trees, leafy ground cover, logs connected to ropes and a mound. | |
Last, Line 2 (No.8) | Grassy area, young trees, maintained gardens, colourful shade cloth and play equipment. | |
Forest | 2nd, Line 2 (No.6) | Rainforest including a dry creek with a bridge and built pathway. A variety of trees and ferns. |
2nd, Line 1 (No.2) | A dirt path through established and young trees and extensive native grass cover. No built features. | |
2nd, Line 3 (No.10) | An open area in dense forest that includes trees and ferns. The open area has a shaded and an unshaded seating area. | |
3rd, Line 1 (No.3) | Established trees. Forest floor is mainly leaves. No built features. | |
Grassy | 3rd, Line 3 (No.7) | Extensive lawns with a concrete path leading to a shaded area. Non-native trees along the perimeter. |
1st, Line 4 (No.13) | Grassy field with small trees and a mound. Includes direct access to a larger group of trees. | |
2nd, Line 4 (No.14) | Extensive lawns, trees on the perimeter and some scattered within the area, posts for volleyball or other sports. | |
1st, Line 3 (No.9) | Grassy hills with sand and shrubs. |
Category | Photo Ref. No. | Personal Preference Total/Rank | Conducive to Education | Correlation: Preference and Conducive | Personal Avoid Total/Rank | Not Conducive to Education | Correlation: Avoid and Not Conducive |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Park with fence | 1 | 58/6 | 59/6 | 0.372 ** | 47/9 | 50/7.5 | 0.273 ** |
16 | 145/2 | 154/1 | 0.278 ** | 16/14 | 17/15 | 0.340 ** | |
11 | 29/11 | 42/7 | −0.004 | 15/13 | 11/11 | 0.079 | |
15 | 7/16 | 10/14 | 0.094 | 73/6 | 80/5 | 0.375 ** | |
Total | 239 | 265 | 151 | 158 | |||
Park with no fence | 5 | 35/9 | 30/10 | 0.258 ** | 49/8 | 50/7.5 | 0.212 ** |
4 | 101/4 | 127/2 | 0.269 ** | 26/12 | 21/13 | 0.240 ** | |
12 | 62/5 | 104/4 | 0.212 ** | 13/15 | 29/16 | 0.045 | |
8 | 38/8 | 39/8.5 | 0.239 ** | 42/10 | 40/10 | 0.207 ** | |
Total | 236 | 300 | 130 | 140 | |||
Forest | 6 | 150/1 | 118/3 | 0.224 ** | 10/16 | 19/14 | 0.027 |
2 | 105/3 | 72/5 | 0.238 ** | 31/11 | 25/12 | 0.333 ** | |
10 | 13/15 | 8/16 | 0.168 ** | 93/3 | 100/2 | 0.301 ** | |
3 | 36/10 | 26/11 | 0.396 ** | 82/5 | 49/9 | 0.354 ** | |
Total | 304 | 224 | 216 | 193 | |||
Grassy | 7 | 46/7 | 39/8.5 | 0.219 ** | 60/7 | 88/4 | 0.187 ** |
13 | 19/14 | 20/13 | 0.259 ** | 94/2 | 72/6 | 0.324 ** | |
14 | 28/12 | 25/12 | −0.015 | 84/4 | 89/3 | 0.208 ** | |
9 | 24/13 | 9/15 | 0.236 ** | 152/1 | 139/1 | 0.320 ** | |
Total | 117 | 93 | 390 | 388 |
Item Rated between 1–5 | Mean/SD | Skewness |
---|---|---|
Experiences in nature important for child appreciation of environment | 4.74/0.76 | −1.81 |
Experiences in nature important for child physical development | 4.70/0.77 | −1.76 |
Experiences in nature important for child overall health and wellness | 4.65/0.79 | −3.14 |
Nature experiences belong within the formal school setting | 4.52/0.85 | −2.90 |
Experiences in nature important for child cognitive development | 4.40/0.83 | −3.45 |
Experiences in nature important for child social-emotional development | 4.36/0.86 | −2.22 |
Likely to use natural areas for educational opportunities in the future | 4.00/1.23 | −1.18 |
Likely to use maintained outdoor environments in the future | 3.87/0.99 | −0.09 |
Perceived difficulty of using natural areas (difficult to easy) | 2.84/0.67 | −0.96 |
Cognitive | Social-Emotional | Physical | Overall Health | Appreciation of Nature | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Likely to use natural areas | 0.213 ** | 0.173 ** | 0.172 ** | 0.200 * | 0.172 * |
Difficult to use natural areas | 0.038 | 0.020 | −0.037 | −0.018 | 0.027 |
Likely to use maintained | 0.153 ** | 0.168 ** | 0.163 ** | 0.124 * | 0.117 * |
Nature belongs in school | 0.696 ** | 0.658 ** | 0.759 ** | 0.736 ** | 0.791 ** |
Enjoy Outdoors | Rarely in Nature | Enjoy Dirt on My Hands | Notice Wildlife Wherever I Am | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Likely select natural | 0.247 ** | −0.291 ** | 0.276 ** | 0.309 ** |
Difficulties with natural areas | 0.051 | −0.136 * | 0.017 | 0.060 |
Likely select maintained | −0.004 | 0.000 | −0.011 | 0.038 |
Cognitive | 0.262 ** | −0.299 ** | 0.234 ** | 0.290 ** |
Social-Emotional | 0.156 ** | −0.195 ** | 0.248 ** | 0.285 ** |
Physical | 0.081 | −0.192 ** | 0.097 | 0.238 ** |
Overall health | 0.187 ** | −0.249 ** | 0.158 ** | 0.272 ** |
Appreciation of nature | 0.096 | −0.212 ** | 0.095 | 0.290 ** |
Nature important in schools | 0.119 * | −0.244 ** | 0.098 | 0.273 ** |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wyver, S. Australian Preservice Early Childhood Teachers’ Considerations of Natural Areas as Conducive and Important to Include in Educational Experiences. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 481. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12070481
Wyver S. Australian Preservice Early Childhood Teachers’ Considerations of Natural Areas as Conducive and Important to Include in Educational Experiences. Education Sciences. 2022; 12(7):481. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12070481
Chicago/Turabian StyleWyver, Shirley. 2022. "Australian Preservice Early Childhood Teachers’ Considerations of Natural Areas as Conducive and Important to Include in Educational Experiences" Education Sciences 12, no. 7: 481. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12070481