Constructing Nature with Children: a Phenomenological Study of Preschoolers’ Experiences With(In) a Natural Environment

CONSTRUCTING NATURE WITH CHILDREN: A PHENOMENOLOGICAL STUDY OF PRESCHOOLERS’ EXPERIENCES WITH(IN) A NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

A dissertation submitted to the Kent State University College and Graduate School of Education, Health, and Human Services in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Adonia F. Porto

August 2017

A dissertation written by

Adonia F. Porto

B.S., Kent State University, 2009

M.Ed., Kent State University, 2010

Ph.D., Kent State University, 2017

Approved by

______, Director, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Janice Kroeger

______, Member, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Martha Lash

______, Member, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Andrew Lepp

Accepted by

______, Director, School of Teaching, Learning, and Alexa L. Sandmann Curriculum Studies

______, Dean, College of Education, Health, and James C. Hannon Human Services

iii

PORTO, ADONIA F., Ph.D., August 2017 Curriculum and Instruction

CONSTRUCTING NATURE WITH CHILDREN: A PHENOMENOLOGICAL STUDY OF PRESCHOOLERS’ EXPERIENCES WITH(IN) A NATURAL ENVIRONMENT (236 pp.)

Director of Dissertation: Janice Kroeger, Ph.D.

This research investigated young children’s experiences of a natural wetland environment as they constructed meanings of nature in a group. This work was framed theoretically on the premise of social constructivism and ethical listening in efforts to phenomenologically understand how children came to know nature through pre-reflective and reflective experience. The phenomenological double hermeneutic method supported a data collection of 2400 minutes of video, 110 minutes of audio recording, 120 pages of handwritten notes, 56 drawings as reflections, and 88 photographs. Phenomenological writing, including anecdotes and punctum, led to the culmination of Our Five Phenomena of Nature. The five phenomena we discovered were Nature Hides us from Evil, Nature is

Unpredictable and Surprising, Nature can be Dead and Alive, Nature Likes Children and

We’re All Nature. Each phenomenon activated learning, for 16 children and 2 adults, and fostered an ongoing relationship with(in) nature and an understanding of be(in)nature, that we can be in nature outdoors or that as humans, we are nature.

Nature’s unpredictability forces us to be in conditions of being and becoming

(Davies, 2014; Sellers, 2013) and an openness to what curriculum becomes with children.

Children led their own inquiries to discover the known and unknown, leading to group understanding. Over time, the children discovered that, like them, nature needs care and compassion. Teaching and research implications are discussed as Learning with(in)

Nature, We Care to (Re)know Nature, Knowing Nature Differently and Making Sense of

Nature to provide possibilities for how other children and teachers might (re)know nature.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To my co-researchers in The Log Playground: Carmen, Fitz, Luis, Nadia, Zeke, Rosie,

Midas, Nikki, Milly, Lee, Lillian, and Yoshi. You taught me the most about nature. I will remember that worms need cozy beds. I feel fortunate for our time, and I thank you and your family for our research together. I hope this book reminds you that we are nature and nature needs our care. To Janice Kroeger: Your care and guidance over the years has made me brighter and stronger. You pushed me when I needed it the most and your passion for hard work is contagious. To Marty and Andy: Your patience, time and support is greatly appreciated. Your feedback encouraged me to see my work in a different way, and I learned so much from each of you. I have been lucky to have committee members who were dedicated to my success. I am fortunate to have so many caring friends. To Terri: Your partnership in this work led me to know children and nature differently. I couldn’t have done it without you. To Pam, Julie, Casey, Rochelle,

Brianna, and Jenny: You make my days better. During this process, you let me lean on you when I needed to, and I’m forever grateful. To Jodi: For being in my life, believing in me, bringing me coffee and playing with Charlotte. You never doubted me and reminded me to “stay smart.” To my family: You make “proud” sound the best with continuous support. To Charlotte: I do it all for you, kid. Being with you gives my life purpose, and I have never smiled harder. To my husband, Michael: Wow! This has been a journey. I owe you all the days. Your support has made all the difference. The strawberry shortcake helped too. I love you more.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... vi

LIST OF FIGURES...... x

CHAPTER I. CHILDREN AND NATURE...... 1 Statement of the Problem...... 3 Purpose of the Study...... 4 Research Questions...... 5 Definition of Terms...... 6 Nature...... 6 Natural Environments...... 8 Experience...... 9 Meaning-making with Young Children...... 10 Ethical Listening in Curriculum and Research with Children...... 11

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE...... 14 Deconstructing Nature...... 14 Constructivism as a Worldview...... 17 Bruner’s Process of Education in Four Themes...... 18 Social Constructivism...... 21 The Social Constructivist Classroom...... 22 Planning Curriculum with Children...... 22 The Image of the Child...... 23 Documentation, Context, and Listening...... 25 The Milieu of Curriculum...... 28 Curriculum in Natural Environments...... 29 Existing Barriers...... 30 Priorities for Children’s Play in Natural Environments...... 31 Leading Questions and Concepts for Review of Literature...... 32 Trends in the Literature...... 32 Our Disconnection with Nature...... 33 Outdoor Play...... 35 The Affordances of Outdoor Play...... 36 Loose Parts...... 39 Unstructured Free Play in the Outdoors...... 40 Nature-Based Preschools in the United States...... 41 Forest Schools: An International Initiative...... 43 Sharing Nature with Preschoolers...... 51

III. QUALITATIVE METHODOLOGY...... 53 Qualitative Research: Definition and Position...... 53 Phenomenological Inquiry: Platforms of Pre-reflection and Reflection...... 54 Phenomenological Writing: Hermeneutic Epoché-reduction & Anecdotes. . . . .56 Epoché-reduction...... 56 The Anecdote...... 57 Double Hermeneutic...... 58 Method of Ethical Listening ...... 59 Research Questions...... 60 Research Context...... 61 Participants...... 62 Researcher Position Regarding Research with Children...... 63 Data Generation...... 65 Establishing Rigor: Phases of Data Generation...... 66 Participant Observation Videoing...... 69 Child-Led Interviews ...... 71 Bookmaking, Tours, and Magic Carpet...... 72 Background of Researchers ...... 72 Roles of Researchers...... 74 Everyday Needs...... 74 Video Recording...... 75 Video Reviewing and Note Taking...... 76 Data Management and Analysis...... 78 Pre-reflective and Reflective Interpretation...... 78 Analysis of Data...... 79 Reflexivity in Data Generation: Adjustments and Challenges...... 80 Ethical Considerations...... 82 Writing and Reading a Phenomenological Text...... 85 The Challenges of Writing up: Our Five Phenomena of Nature...... 87

IV. OUR FIVE PHENOMENA OF NATURE...... 89 Introduction to The Log Playground ...... 91 The Co-researchers ...... 96 Our Journey to The Log Playground...... 100 Phenomenon I: Nature Hides us from Evil ...... 103 The Trees are Hiding us ...... 104 One Big Daddy Long Leg...... 108 The Earth is Right Here...... 114 Nature Hides us from Evil...... 116 Phenomenon II: Nature is Unpredictable and Surprising...... 117 Worm Poop...... 120 I Probably Don’t Like Worms...... 124 Nature is Unpredictable and Surprising...... 128 Phenomenon III: Nature can be Dead and Alive...... 128

Pat Cassandra...... 129 The Potato Bug...... 134 Ear Worms...... 138 Nature can be Dead and Alive...... 142 Phenomenon IV: Nature Likes Children...... 145 Nature Died Two Times...... 149 Salamanders are Family...... 153 Dead, Dead Nature Bed...... 156 Nature Likes Children...... 157 Phenomenon V: We’re All Nature ...... 161 Tree Heaven...... 164 Nature Talk...... 165 Salamander Brother...... 172 We’re All Nature...... 173 The Themes of Nature...... 174

V. CONSTRUCTING NATURE WITH PRESCHOOLERS...... 177 Learning with(in) Nature...... 179 We Care to Re(know) Nature...... 185 Constructing Nature: A Visual Tool ...... 186 Knowing Nature Differently...... 196 Breaking Through Adult Barriers ...... 196 Finding Value in Loose Parts...... 198 Our Forest School...... 199 Making Sense of Nature: The Double Hermeneutic...... 201 Nature Wonderings...... 204 Teaching Nature...... 204 International Quality of Nature...... 205 The Force of Being Present with(in) Nature...... 206

APPENDICES...... 207 APPENDIX A. INFORMED CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN A RESEARCH STUDY...... 208 APPENDIX B. INFORMED ASSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN A RESEARCH STUDY...... 211

REFERENCES...... 213

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. International Outdoor Initiatives...... 47

2. Ways of Reflecting...... 66

3. Phases of Data Generation...... 68

4. Ways of Questioning...... 71

5. IPA Steps of Data Analysis...... 79

6. Themes of Nature...... 175

7. Constructing Nature...... 188

8. Nature Hides Us from Evil...... 189

9. Nature is Unpredictable and Surprising...... 190

10. Nature can be Dead and Alive...... 192

11. Nature Likes Children...... 193

12. We’re All Nature...... 195

viii

CHAPTER I:

CHILDREN AND NATURE

Childhood and nature are a meshing duo that considers the relationship between

Earth and humans when they are children. Together, they set both the boundaries and the possibilities for how practices in early childhood are conceptualized. Through social constructivist (Bruner, 1960; Demeritt, 2001; MacNaughton, 2003; Vygotsky, 1978) and re-conceptualist lenses (Dahlberg & Moss, 2005; Davies, 2014; Moss & Pence, 2007;

Rinaldi, 2006; Taylor, 2013), this study contests the dominant discourse of the “natural child” trajectory to unravel the simplification of childhood and the capabilities of young children. To suggest in the past, young children have been perceived as existing in a state of innocence and purity, romanticized in western culture, to be protected from “the contamination of adults and society” (Taylor, 2013, p. ix). This research challenges the image of children as less capable than adults while considering the existing connection between children and the physical natural environment. My position considers children’s experiences of the natural environment and whether they can determine their own connection with and meanings of nature. An entanglement of epistemologies considers that children can, be(in)nature if given the opportunity to socially construct meanings on their own terms.

Our sole existence as a living species “naturally” connects us with the living earth

(Kahn & Kellert, 2002; Sobel 2008). “Naturally” is a term referring to “the force which drives us to exist in a certain way” such as our instinct to do something (Demeritt, 2001)

as well as “being born of the earth” or “being Earth’s child” (Castree & Braun, 2001;

Corsaro, 1997; Sobel, 2008). This natural force connects us directly to nature if we spend enough time in nature for the connection to transpire. Our connection reminds us that the natural world is alive and conscious and needs our care (Chawla, 1998; Chawla, 2007).

Some adults maintain their connection from childhood and understand the need for earth’s protection, while others lose the connection and use the earth for personal gains.

Chawla (1998; 2007) and Sobel (2008) argued that if children develop a strong enough connection as children, it will last into adulthood. If children are given uninterrupted time in nature, a connection forms leading to care and compassion for Earth. My conceptual argument is that children are capable of socially constructing nature, based on the possible construct of be(in)nature. Be(in)nature has three possible understandings for children:

1. They are nature. They can be(in) nature because they are living and have

similar characteristics to the living species they discover.

2. They can play and manipulate nature and its materials in, be (in) nature.

3. They can recognize be(in)nature or both. They can understand that they are

nature and might manipulate nature with intentional empathy and care.

All meanings are crucial to childhood and humanity. Young children can find value in what they feel, sense, and discover to be important about nature and natural environments and have the potential to change how educators think and support curriculum in the

outdoors. My assumption is that if our efforts as educators sustain children’s connections to nature; nature conservation will prevail into adulthood and promote intrinsic motivation for preserving the earth’s beauty and future sustainability.

Statement of the Problem

For nearly 25 years, urbanized western societies have encouraged less exposure to the outdoors and a disassociation with nature (Hoffeth, 2008; Little & Wyver, 2008;

Louv, 2008; Louv, 2011). The increase in population, crime, and movement to urban areas has caused legislation and schools to associate outdoor play with high-risks and concerns for safety, which results in parents pulling their children inside more than in the past (Burdette & Whitaker, 2005; Lester & Russell, 2010; Woolley, Pattacini, &

Somerset Ward, 2009). Furthermore, socio-demographic characteristics and limited access to green space have created inequalities in opportunities for playing outdoors

(Elliot & Davis, 2008; Shores, Scott, & Floyd, 2007). Despite the growing body of literature highlighting the importance of outdoor experiences, parents are competing with the advancement in technologies, or “screen time,” and the way children choose to play while they are at home (Louv, 2008; Taylor & Kuo, 2006). Schools and daycares are a potential avenue for young children’s engagement in the outdoors on a regular basis, especially when they are spending 40-50 hours a week outside the home. However, children’s play, including that in the outdoors, is still often “considered a misuse of children’s time that could be better spent engaged in formal learning” (Dowdell, Gray &

Malone, 2011; Sobel, 2008).

Research that exists involving preschool children’s social constructions of their experiences in natural environments is limited for several reasons including reduced access to green space on a regular basis, mandated early childhood curriculum and policy, and misconceptions of children as less than competent participants in research

(Farrell, 2005). Although research with children has gained momentum since the 1980s

(Einarsdottir, 2012; Graue, 1998; Sellers, 2013), research involving ethical listening and phenomenological understanding of young children becomes an opportunity to know children differently. Considering young children’s ideas to be “as significant as those of adults,” suggests receiving them for who they are, recognizing their cultural identity and learning needs, and what they bring to the world of curriculum (Sellers, 2013).

Furthermore, taking their voices seriously and acting upon their ideas (Einarsdottir, 2012;

Waller & Bitou, 2011). Receiving children, as suggested by Sellers (2013), while they are in natural environments, puts forth new possibilities for how we might begin to understand nature through the lens of young children and explore what their meanings propose for early childhood practice and research.

Purpose of the Study

This study investigated young children’s experiences of a natural outdoor wetlands and deciduous forest environment as an extension of their early childhood classroom. Specifically, this investigation examined how children came to know a natural environment over time and the meanings they shared and constructed in a group setting. This work was framed, theoretically, on the premise of social constructivism and ethical listening in an effort to gain a phenomenological understanding where the pre-

reflective now and the reflected now of experience were brought to fruition (van Manen,

2014). Video data collection, adaptations of the Mosaic Approach (Clark & Moss, 2005;

2008), phenomenological writing and Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) were utilized to challenge the notion that children are less capable than adults of reflecting on their own experiences and, therefore, are not competent research participants.

Furthermore, this study encourages others to understand that, if given enough time in nature, children recognize the connection between all living species and that they are nature themselves.

Research Questions

The following research questions were posed to understand children’s pre- reflective and reflective experiences of nature:

1. How do young children, ages four and five, experience (interact and respond to the direct physical elements) an outdoor wetlands environment near their school?

2. How do young children create meanings about nature in a group setting?

3. How do young children’s meanings of nature emerge and change over a school year?

In a methodological sense, these questions required significant unpacking as each question alluded to how people socially constructed individual and collective meanings of nature. These questions assisted in uncovering the pre-reflective and reflective experiences of young children to understand how children’s experiences lead to connections and the concept of be(in)nature. It is important to be transparent about how my research questions clearly separated children from

adults in the way the questions were worded. The questions were purposefully written this way because I was more concerned about how children connected with nature than adults. Additionally, because of the phenomenological position of the study, I hoped to understand the phenomenon of nature based on the meanings given by children but recognized that my own presence and reflections could not be separated and would be added in the phenomenological text.

Definition of Terms Nature

When considering nature as a term to be defined, I have embarked on a complicated journey to define what it meant for me and what I assumed that it meant for children before this study took place. First, and foremost, nature is a phenomenon.

Better yet, nature is phenomena. Nature is a thing outside of humans or rather without them and before them. When nature is defined by the online Merriam-Webster

Dictionary (2014), nature is “the physical world and everything in it that is not made by people such as plants, animals, mountains, oceans, and stars.” The word nature is derived from the Latin word, natura, which is “to be born” (Merriam-Webster, 2014).

Nature is also our “mother,” as in Mother Nature. The way animals act and the way people act, based on instinct, is nature or more specifically, natural.

My definition is that nature is the grass, the trees, and the things most associated with green. Nature is also a place to go and a space to be in. When fully immersed, I know that people become nature. People develop a strong connection where they realize, or perhaps remember, they are nature themselves. Then, suddenly their existence seems

small when they think about the earth, the universe, and its entirety. I also define nature as a pastime, a memory, which I revisit with just a familiar smell, like that of dandelions.

Dandelions that I used to lie in when I was little and then blow the white seeds to watch them fly. I was careful of bees but loved the way dandelions felt under my bare feet.

Memories from our childhood fade away but can return with just one smell. Further, I define nature as how we exist today. We survive in nature. We use its resources to sustain our lives. All things considered, nature is the future as it will exist long after our time has ended. Nature is timeless.

My assumptions of how children might talk about nature during the study helped me consider what questions to pose and how to listen for opportunities to understand meaning. I assumed that they might suggest that nature is living things or all things outside, the things outside their school and homes. I assumed it may be expressed as the earth, the soil, the grass, the trees, the water, the sky, the sun, and the moon. Nature may be their families, babies, puppies, and the idea of being loved. Nature may be what is in a book, a magazine, or what is on the Discovery Channel. Nature may also be a painting they have seen or created. However, during this study, children were capable of more than I assumed, because nature is unpredictable. We did not know what we would discover the year we came to know nature as The Log Playground. The anecdotes in

Chapter IV suggest five possible phenomena that preschool children may discover in nature when given the opportunity.

Natural Environments

Natural environments, as a plural entity, are spaces that encompass nature and all that nature offers (Staempfli, 2009). The term, natural environments, refers to Earth or a part of Earth, i.e., land and water. Often nature and natural environments are terms used interchangeably referring to the space you go to when you go outside your home. When considering a variety of natural environments, Parsons (2011) suggests that natural environments are a subset of wilderness. Undisturbed land free of human activity, such as rainforests and national parks that are law protected to keep endangered species alive are considered wilderness. Other nature spaces such as wetlands, pastures, and forests are all examples of natural environments because they are generally maintained by humans. As referenced in Chapter II, Fjortoft (2004) suggests that “Nature, whether a forest, seashore, creek, or mountain area, represents a dynamic environment and a stimulating and challenging playground for children” (p. 36).

For this study, I was limited to the natural environments that were easily accessible to preschool children and adults. While I realize that the nature accessible to most children may be a small plot of grass and/or trees on a school playground or near their school, we were fortunate to have access to a well-developed wetland in this study.

Although man-made, the wetland included many areas with minimal upkeep. We discovered fallen dead trees, overgrown brush, briers, dead animals, and spaces encompassed by trees to hide sight of man-made construction on the periphery and within. Natural environments in this study referred to the nearby wetlands space but also any space, outdoors, that essentially encouraged the children to experience nature.

Experience

As part of a broader conceptual framework, I used Kellert’s (2002) classification of experience to elaborate the act of experiencing nature. Kellert’s three types of experience (direct, indirect, and vicarious) distinguished the ways in which I classified in the study how the children interacted with nature. Direct experience refers to direct physical contact with natural spaces and nonhuman species. When children are directly experiencing nature, their involvement is unplanned, spontaneous play in a space with natural elements that “function largely independent of human intervention and control”

(p. 119). Children’s indirect experiences are manipulated situations where children can interact with nature in places such as zoos, aquariums, and nature centers in a controlled amount that is limited by adults. Vicarious or symbolic experience refers to experiences without actual physical contact with nature. These experiences include scenes and images of nature on television, and in books and magazines. While technology has continued to improve and interactions with books are still important, several studies

(Louv, 2008; Maynard & Waters, 2007; Nedovic & Morrissey, 2013; Taylor & Kuo,

2006) argue that vicarious experiences are not enough to maintain the needed relationship with nature to sustain a connection with nature that develops into stewardship in adulthood.

It is important to be transparent about my own relationship with the earth. My environmental stewardship is strong. I grew up being cautious about how nature was treated in my backyard. I always advocated for getting any bugs in my home back outdoors to their families, because “What if that spider was somebody’s mama?” As an

adult, I realize the importance of recycling and conservation. I relate to Aldo Leopold’s land ethic (1949) and advocate for others to care also. As revealed in the data, my care for the earth was noticed as I strived to protect living species while being open to sharing experiences with young children. This meant that the lives of some worms and insects were compromised from being accidentally squeezed or stepped on, that some leaves and branches were picked, and that that the stump of The Log Playground tree decomposed faster because of the children’s need to “work.”

Meaning-making with Young Children

Young children can create meanings of their own experiences regardless of context. Making meaning opportunities in nature, from my perspective, are the moments presented to children to share their ideas about nature in a group setting where we listen and co-construct knowledge together, resulting in the meanings we attribute to life.

Maynard and Waters (2007) suggested that

the natural environment not only supports children’s own investigations but also

provides an ideal context for group activities in which the development of

knowledge, concepts, and skills from across the curriculum are embedded within

authentic, purposeful, and often real-life tasks (p. 257).

For meaning-making to occur, “children’s self-learning and co-learning are supported by interactive experiences constructed with the help of adults, who determine the selection and organization of processes and strategies that are part of and coherent with the goals of early childhood education” (Malaguzzi, 1994, p. 9). Furthermore, children were encouraged in this study to create their own meanings in a culture of

ethical listening (Dahlberg & Moss, 2005; Dockett, Einardottir & Perry, 2009; Rinaldi,

2004; Rinaldi, 2006) where they could approach the things they did not know about, referred to as crises of knowledge (Rinaldi, 2004), with competence and support from others.

Ethical Listening in Curriculum and Research with Children

The teacher-child hierarchy begins to dissolve when children are in conditions of

(be)coming curriculum with their teachers. However, moving beyond traditional curriculum and doing research with children sets the pace for additional tensions (Farrell,

2005). The Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989; United

Nations, 2005) has set precedents for recognizing children’s rights to participate in decisions about their own lives and circumstances. However, Sonja Sheridan and Ingrid

Pramling Sammulsson (2009) argue that supporting children’s right to decision-making depends on how adults receive children and their knowledge, learning, and experience (p.

79). In this study, my research questions were broad enough that I could receive children for who they were in nature, accepting endless possibilities, without any predetermined agenda or vision. Dockett, Einardottir, and Perry (2009) suggest that “efforts to engage children not only in the generation of data, but also in the interpretation of data can ensure that the voice of the researcher is not the only one considered” (p. 290).

Furthermore, adults should try to recognize when they are listening to some children more than others (Einarsdottir, 2012). Seven of the co-researchers were in my preschool classroom during the study, and so, naturally, I had a stronger relationship with them. I was drawn to listen to them more, and considered their academic skills, because of my

responsibility as their teacher. This unavoidable bias meant that I had to think consciously and consistently about how to listen to the other five co-researchers equally.

Ethical listening puts forth a need to ensure that children feel heard and respected throughout the process of data generation and interpretation. The phrase ethical listening describes the strategies that I used intentionally to hold each child in the status as an equal researcher throughout this study. I acknowledge that the teacher-child power dynamic cannot be denied, but the following essential efforts assisted in discovering a true representation of children’s meaning-making. In summary, to work with children in a culture of ethical listening means living in a state of unpredictable outcomes, to exercise the ways of listening (Rinaldi, 2006), to exist in an environment with conditions of (be)coming (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987; Sellers, 2013), to put aside the research agenda and accept what evolves, continuing to actively seek children’s assent through the research process, and to question oneself and children to transparently grasp the social construction of knowledge.

The five definitions of nature, natural environments, experience, meaning- making and ethical listening are meant to serve as a vehicle for understanding nature as a phenomenon and the listening framework for doing research with young children. It is my hope that in the chapters to follow, early childhood practitioners and researchers will find value in the ways that children and their teachers discovered five phenomena of nature in The Log Playground by their school.

Chapter II will expound upon the defined terms and review the literature related to social constructivism, ethical listening, children’s experiences with(in) natural environments.

Literature pertaining to children in natural environments will consider barriers that may exist for early childhood teachers, particularly in the United States, and how nature experiences as Forest School is approached internationally. Next, Chapter III will address the methodology that was used to consider how children and teachers can be in conditions of (be)coming in curriculum and research (Sellers, 2013) as well as the phenomenological understanding of children’s pre-reflective and reflective experiences of nature and natural environments. Anecdotes and Interpretive Data Analysis (IPA) will be discussed to serve as practical possibilities for capturing children’s responses as reflections. Additionally, the research site, researchers, and participants will be introduced. Then, Chapter IV will tell our stories of coming to know nature as a phenomenon together and the study’s data will be revealed as a phenomenological text.

Fourteen anecdotes, photographs, and children’s drawings will be situated as five phenomena that we co-constructed together based on our experiences with(in) nature.

Finally, Chapter V will discuss implications and future possibilities for curriculum and research with young children regarding nature, natural environments, and phenomenology.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

There are several theoretical lenses to consider when reviewing the literature pertinent to a study investigating young children’s experiences of nature in a natural environment. Lenses considered in this review focused on how nature has been conceptualized as a social construction, the constructivist worldview from which I proposed this study, the image of young children, and the possibilities of (be)coming curriculum in natural environments (Bruner, 1960; Demerrit, 1998, 2001; Rinaldi, 2006;

Sellers, 2013; Vygotsky, 1962; Vygotsky, 1978). Additionally, several trends in the literature were explored including outdoor play, the affordances of natural environments, opportunities for creativity and risk-taking, and the notion that children gained the most from outdoor experiences during free, unstructured play. Two important gaps in the research were discovered in the review and highlighted how (a) most studies involving children’s experiences in natural environments took place outside of the United States, and (b) many of the studies referred to adult perceptions of children’s experiences rather than children articulating their own perspectives through participatory methods. The review indicates how more research is needed to understand how young children construct their own meanings of nature in a group while exploring natural environments.

Deconstructing Nature

Historically, “nature” has been deconstructed and (re) constructed over time.

Three foundational arguments of idealizing nature are (a) the way in which something

exists, (b) the inherent force which directs existence or natural laws, and (c) the external material natural world (Demeritt, 2001; Williams, 1983). In geography, both natural and social sciences are considered when defining nature. The natural sciences refer to the physical properties and objective scientific experiments, while the social sciences refer to meaning making and human perspectives (Demeritt, 2001). If an either/or stance is taken, the notion of nature as only a concept rejects the authority of the science of nature as an object and creates a controversial debate. Enlightenment epistemologies are dedicated to the reality and truth of knowledge: the scientific argument. Without any room for bending, pushing possible social constructionist views aside, we are left with

“an inflexible, take-it-or-leave-it understanding of scientific knowledge: either real, objective, and therefore true, or artificial, subjective, and thus socially constructed”

(Demeritt, 2001, p. 34). Including the perspective of both sciences means questioning if nature encompasses humans. Do we act in a way because “human nature” drives us to or are we distinguished from other animals because we can rationalize about our own instincts (Ginn & Demeritt, 2008)? Social science, or how people socially construct meaning, is the focus of data collection in this study, but the research here does not deny that the natural sciences are also explored when studying nature.

Critical geographers (Demeritt, 1998; Demeritt, 2001; Ginn & Demeritt, 2008) offered elaborated constructivist views of “nature.” Demeritt (2001) examined the social constructions of nature and the implications for understanding them as constructions. He stated that understanding these constructions “depend upon linguistic oppositions to that which is said to be cultural, artificial, or otherwise human in origin” (p. 32). His

argument is that social constructions change over time and so must the formation of what nature is. How people view and think about nature is always changing. Understanding the social construction of nature considers the group from which it was constructed. For instance, some believe that intelligence is “natural” in the way in which it exists genetically, while others argue that intelligence is a social construction because it only exists when measured by tests.

Additionally, Demeritt (2001) suggested that primitive people or “people closer to the land” uphold natural laws (a more positivist view) where people from a modern perspective have escaped the laws and feel a sense of dominance over the external environment (ownership and a social constructionist view). Blame then rests on the primitive people for not protecting and maintaining their wilderness and on the people with a modern view for destroying the natural environment (Demeritt, 1998). People of a more modernized view see nature as a material and consider what it means for their own use and potential resources. When people are literately manipulating the earth to meet their needs through actions such as farming, genetic engineering, and green housing, it becomes clear why scientists and critical geographers are concerned. Western societies put forth this modern view, which capitalizes on the perspective of American consumerism (Leonard, 2011). Based on what we know about child development and the constructivist view, it is likely that nature is a social construction in the minds of young children as passed down by their parents. Education researchers are considering what nature affords or does for children. As suggested throughout this work, it is the responsibility of the adult to ensure that children have access to natural environments to

support children’s social construction of what nature is, how nature exists with humans, what nature affords, and the possibilities of children coming to know how they can be(in)nature.

Constructivism as a Worldview

The philosopher that has led me to develop a constructivist worldview (Creswell,

2014) was Jerome Bruner. Bruner realized a strong theory that children can learn any concept if it is presented to them at their stage of development (Bruner, 1960, p. 33).

Over time, his view of education changed and was continuously constructed and deconstructed because of his collaboration with and influence by others (Piaget, 1952;

Vygotsky, 1962; Vygotsky, 1978). With Bruner’s worldview in mind, teachers have the potential to see the value of constructing curriculum with children and what it means for early childhood practice.

Bruner was a psychologist who has influenced education movements in the

United States, in terms of developmental psychology, since the 1960s. It was during this time that he published the book, The Process of Education (1960), which became a landmark text for education scholars. Bruner’s theory of children as active participants who construct new ideas based upon their current or past knowledge became a theory explored by many and the epistemological basis for this study. Other education researchers, including education theorists Howard Gardner, studied under Bruner and were highly influenced by his work. During his study, Bruner was influenced by Jean

Piaget (1952) and Lev Vygotsky (1962;1978). However, some of Bruner’s work

disagreed with that of Piaget (1952) and he did not recognize Vygotsky’s notion of social constructivism until later in life.

Additionally, Bruner considered how the planning and implementing of curricula would support children as active agents. He asked two questions, (1) What shall be taught, when, how? (2) What kinds of research and inquiry might further the growing effort in the design of curricula?”(Bruner, 1960;1977, p. 3). With these questions,

Bruner studied a change in the process of education during the 1960s and explained how the production of general knowledge shifted to the idea of creating an understanding of a skill set to “learn how to learn under optimum learning conditions” (p. 6). He continued to identify how learning the structure of a subject matter will push students to develop a deeper understanding that will “permit other things to be related to it meaningfully. . .to learn how things are related” (p. 7). In addition, he confirmed that information or knowledge must be structured so that the student can expand on his/her previous thinking and go beyond what is simply given.

Bruner’s Process of Education in Four Themes

Bruner (1960) identified his process of education through four themes: (1) the role of structure in learning, (2) readiness for learning, (3) intuition, and (4) the desire to learn. As Bruner referred to the role of structure in one’s learning, he mentioned, “an important ingredient is a sense of excitement about discovery-discovery of regularities of previously unrecognized relations and similarities between ideas, with a resulting sense of self-confidence in one’s abilities” (1960, p. 20). This ingredient is connected to the idea of having a desire to learn which he referred to again later as his fourth theme. He

also asserted that more attention needed to be given to four claims about structure: (1) how to teach the fundamentals of understanding, meaning not only the basic principles of a field but also the attitudes involved in learning about it; (2) the consideration of memory, because, in fact, if you don’t use it, you lose it; (3) the claim of “transfer of training” (p. 25), meaning having the ability to learn the fundamentals of one thing generally in order to apply the same model to understand other things; and (4) the final claim is to continue to reexamine what is being taught, “to narrow the gap between

“advanced” and “elementary” knowledge” (1960, p. 26).

A theory that Bruner stated is that “any subject can be taught effectively in some intellectually honest form to any child at any stage of development” (1960, p. 33). To argue his theory, Bruner used Piaget’s stages of development (pre-operational, concrete operational, formal operational) as an indicator for finding children where they are developmentally. He referred to these stages when he discussed the idea of readiness.

He thoroughly explained that children should be offered difficult questions at any age if, in fact, they are interested in the problem, they are able to obtain a deeper understanding of the subject and can make at least one generalization beyond it. During the 60s and

70s, there was a question about whether children should be taught such difficult concepts well before being able to formalize them, in the formal operational stage, and Bruner’s research showed that “such rigorous and relevant training has the effect of making later learning easier” (1960, p. 47). He explained that meeting children at their stage of development and adapting problems in mathematics, science, history, and beyond to fit their level cognitively invites children “to the ideas and styles that in later life make an

educated man” through a spiral curriculum (1960, p. 52). A spiral curriculum encourages children to build upon initial theories as new information is presented.

Throughout their life, students continue to learn as they dismiss old theories and new ones are formed.

Both intuition and the desire to learn serve children well. The type of intuitive thinking that Bruner is referring to in his third theme of the process of education is the thinking that occurs when a student is emerged in learning so much that, when solving the problem, the steps, if applicable, or process is lost. Bruner explained,

Usually intuitive thinking rests on familiarity with the domain of knowledge

involved and with its structure, which makes it possible for the thinker to leap

about, skipping steps and employing shortcuts in a manner that requires a later

rechecking of conclusions by more analytic means, whether deductive or

inductive (1960, p. 58).

He concluded that some problems might not be solved as successfully if the aim is to solve problems analytically and slowly. Practicing teachers, as I have seen, often refer to moments of intuitive thinking as “ah-ha” moments, moments when children and even teachers get lost in the moment. When the learning occurs, the child may or may not be able to explain the process, resulting in phrases such as “I just know” or “Because it is.”

Bruner also pointed out that not all intuitive thinking, or ah-ha moments, are “good” depending on how they turn out, so children need time to explore and to construct their own knowledge. Their intuition may lead them to an answer that adults know to be

incorrect. However, children built upon their previous knowledge, which places them further along than where they were before addressing the problem.

Social Constructivism

Lev Vygotsky was the guru of social constructivism. Living from 1896-1934, he believed that children learned best through their social interactions with others, both children and teachers. He saw children as capable of developing higher cognitive knowledge or having the ability to develop reasoning skills through practical activities in the social environment. His theories were unknown in the west until he published

Thought and Language in 1962. In this work, Vygotsky argued that speech and language are social, hence his theory of “social constructivism,” and it is only as children develop that language becomes internalized verbal thought. Later in Interaction between

Learning and Development (1978), Vygotsky highlighted one of his most prominent theories about children’s development, The Zone of Proximal Development. The zone of proximal development refers to a moment in learning where children are engaged in problem-solving with the help of another child or teacher. This act of help from another, known as scaffolding (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976), was a term used by Bruner regarding language acquisition and was inspired by Vygotsky’s work, where he expressed the value of an expert assisting a novice. Vygotsky developed his theories during the same time as Jean Piaget (1952). However, Piaget’s notion that children’s development, at universal stages, must necessarily precede their learning was contradicted by Vygotsky’s thinking where he asserted just the opposite, that social learning precedes development. Nevertheless, Vygotsky was influenced by Piaget’s

theory of how knowledge is constructed, that children cannot simply be given information and obtain it but that they must construct knowledge for themselves. Before his death, Vygotsky confirmed that he believed that children learn through their social context in partnership with their own personal construction and meaning making.

The Social Constructivist Classroom

Children’s zone of proximal development is most successfully supported in a social constructivist classroom. This means that children can freely explore the multifaceted notions of culture through conversations of differences and conversations about the curriculum. These conversations allow teachers to have a deeper understanding of how ethnicity, identity, and biological differences create varied experiences in the same classroom (Vygotksy, 1978). Each child internalizes information differently.

Vygotsky considered this internalization most important in learning and saw the teacher as being responsible for creating experiences for this dialogue of cultural understanding.

When teachers get to know and understand children individually, they can plan experiences that will support the learning of the entire group. The teacher might selectively pair a student that has mastered a skill with a student that is maturing of that skill in order to support cooperative learning (Vygotsky, 1978).

Planning Curriculum with Children

Vygotsky and Bruner’s deliberation of learning possibilities in a social constructivist environment upholds my contention in justifying the planning of curriculum with children. If children are viewed as capable individuals who can develop, negotiate, and contest elements of their own learning, then the planning of curriculum

becomes a cultural process in which all individuals prevail. Through this process, power becomes a lesser issue as children take responsible action for their own learning processes which in return creates a deeper meaning of what learning is and who learning is for. Scholars from early childhood re-conceptualist networks and those of Reggio

Emilia support the framework of planning curriculum with children.

The Image of the Child

Who is the curriculum for? Viewing children as capable individuals who can negotiate and direct how and what they are learning means that adults have considered their own image of the child (Rinaldi, 2006). This notion of image of the child has become internationally known as Reggio Emilia educators have used this phrase in partnership with their own study of social constructivism to describe what it means for education with young children and the possibilities of what these practices could mean for early childhood education practices (Rinaldi, 2006). Within such a learning community, children are constructors of their own learning while teachers focus on children’s strengths rather than weaknesses. This way, teachers become a backboard for children’s thinking as teachers discover children’s ideas, hypotheses and theories through conversations (Vygotsky, 1978; Bruner, 1996; Rinaldi, 2006).

In a social constructivist classroom, curriculum begins with everyday conversations or ordinary moments that become an engaging opportunity to encourage learning. Through symbolic representation, children are encouraged to explore their surroundings and share their thinking through many languages that are “expressive, communicative, symbolic, cognitive, ethical, metaphorical, logical, imaginative, and

relational” (Reggio Children, 2010, p. 4). Teachers create environments that support critical thinking, problem solving, and collaboration which in return promote competency development in all domains of learning. Reggio educators view learning as non-linear but rather as a spiral progression in which they are partners. The teachers also focus on developing a community of learners where children participate in daily conversations, acknowledging and understanding the classroom culture and who “we” are. This notion is then extended further inviting all children and teachers into the greater school community and then out into the municipal community.

Reggio educators have set a precedent for what social constructivist education could be for young children and aspects, such as aesthetic environments, use of natural materials and documentation of children’s work, have been adapted throughout the world. When considering how to plan curriculum, its application should be considered first rather than the theory behind it. This notion is often contested because, historically, the “how to” of education was putting theory into practice, but Malaguzzi suggests that

if theoretical premises are assumed as conclusions. . .those who implement the

educational project are not obliged to reflect, to think, or to create. Excessive

emphasis on the centrality of theory exempts teachers from being protagonists in

the educational process, from pedagogical reflection, and, indeed, from the overall

responsibility of educating (Rinaldi, 2006, p. 56).

True social constructivist education lies in the teacher’s ability to learn for themselves, alongside children.

Documentation, Context, and Listening

The three practices of Reggio educators that have influenced my curriculum work are documentation, context, and listening. Documentation is a process of using a variety of media, usually text and photographs, to express the work of the learning community

(children, families, and teachers). This documentation is displayed for all members to

“re-know,” leaving room for changes and growth in thinking and learning (Rinaldi, 2006, p. 66). The second practice, context, refers to the thinking that goes into preparing the learning environment for children. Considering context means asking the question again,

“Who is the space for?” If the space is for children, it is important to reflect on what we

(teachers) know about children. As suggested by Rinaldi (2006), “Children’s competence and motivation can be either enhanced or inhibited depending on the awareness and motivational force of the context” (p. 84). Teachers must also consider the non-physical space and his/her verbal and non-verbal gestures, while children are learning and how they impact context. Just as we are listening to children, they are listening to (and watching) us.

Listening goes beyond what is heard and refers to a pedagogy practiced by

Reggio educators. Rinaldi (2001) suggests that listening should incorporate the following parameters into the context:

 Listening as sensitivity to the patterns that connect, to that which connects us

to others; abandoning ourselves to the conviction that our understanding and

our own being are but small parts of a broader, integrated knowledge that

holds the universe together.

 Listening, then, as a metaphor for having the openness and sensitivity to listen

and be listened to – listening not just with our ears, but with all our senses

(sight, touch, smell, taste, and orientation).

 Listening to the hundred, the thousand languages, symbols, and codes we use

to express ourselves and communicate, and with which life expresses itself

and communicates to those who know how to listen.

 Listening as time, the time of listening, a time that is outside chronological

time – a time full of silences, of long pauses, an interior time. Interior

listening, listening to ourselves, as a pause, a suspension, as an element that

generates listening to others but, in turn, is generated by the listening that

others give us. Behind the act of listening, there is often a curiosity, a desire,

a doubt, an interest; there is always an emotion.

 Listening is emotion; it is generated by emotions and stimulates emotions.

The emotions of others influence us by means of processes that are strong,

direct, not mediated, and intrinsic to the interactions between communicating

subjects.

 Listening as welcoming and being open to differences, recognizing the value

of the other’s point of view and interpretation.

 Listening is an active verb that involves interpretation, giving meaning to the

message and value to those who offer it.

 Listening that does not produce answers but formulates questions; listening

that is generated by doubt, by uncertainty, which is not insecurity but, on the

contrary, the security that every truth is only such if we are aware of its limits

and its possible “falsification.”

 Listening is not easy. It requires a deep awareness and at the same time a

suspension of our judgments and above all our prejudices; it requires openness

to change. It demands that we have clearly in mind the value of the unknown

and that we are able to overcome the sense of emptiness and precariousness

that we experience whenever our certainties are questioned.

 Listening that takes the individual out of anonymity, that legitimates us, gives

us visibility, enriching both those who listen and those who produce the

message (and children cannot bear to be anonymous).

 Listening as the premise for any learning relationship – learning that is

determined by the “learning subject” and takes shape through his or her mind

through action and reflection, that becomes knowledge and skill through

representation and exchange (p. 80-81).

Listening, therefore, is “a listening context,” where one learns to listen and narrate, where individuals feel competent to represent their theories and offer their own interpretations of a particular question. In representing our theories in a community, we “re-know” or

“re-cognize” them, making it possible for our images and intuitions to take shape and evolve through action, emotion, expressiveness, and iconic and symbolic representations i.e., the hundred languages (Rinaldi, 2001, p. 81). Listening, on a practical level, is daily extended conversations with children that create an environment for building meaningful relationships where children share who they are (their culture), what they know

(knowledge they have or knowledge they would like to have), and how they interpret the world (how they learn). Over time, learning in a “listening context” encourages children’s competence to be leaders of the community and guide their own learning.

The Milieu of Curriculum

Sellers (2013) suggested a “lived understanding curriculum.” Meshing well with the theoretical underpinnings of the Reggio Emilia approach, a lived understanding curriculum is viewed as inquiry and speculation rather than “something” that can be fixed or changed. Those who (re)think curriculum are potentially, “flattening the adult/child hierarchy that valorizes conceptions of the mature adult by receiving understandings of young children as equitable play(ers) in/of curriculum, and by (re)conceiving curriculum as milieu of curricular performativity” (p. 26). The milieu, the social space in connection to the Reggio Emilia notion of context, becomes the point of re-thinking, re-knowing, and re-conceptualizing. In doing so, a “more visionary approach” is possible for children and adults (Sellers, 2013).

To emphasize further, the Deleuzo-Guarttarian notion of becoming curriculum explains how children should not be viewed as a separate entity but, “as the child becomes curriculum, curriculum becomes the child so that curriculum and child are always already in conditions of becoming” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987; Sellers, 2013, p.

33). As the child and curriculum exist simultaneously, they become fluid and diverse, avoiding specifics of what and how. We are challenged to let go of the what and how of curriculum to gain an understanding of children’s views. In this challenge, “we need to take young children seriously and openly receive their curricula performativity as

expressions of their understandings…not bringing young children’s understandings into the conversation is not an option” (Sellers, 2013, p. 41). Both the frameworks of

Reggio and re-conceptualist scholars invite practitioners to think more critically about their work with young children. If curriculum is a milieu in which we

(be)come together with children, we essentially do not know what each day will hold. This uncertainty is difficult for educators as the unsettled possibilities may insinuate that we are not doing our job.

Curriculum in Natural Environments

These frameworks extend potential for curriculum in natural environments.

Natural environments, as defined in Chapter I, are spaces that are minimally touched by man. If teachers allow an opportunity to (be)come curriculum with children in the outdoors, children will guide their own learning while constructing knowledge through physical, cognitive, and social/emotional inquiries that move beyond their interests indoors. In a context of becoming, teachers listen to discover possible learning opportunities as children share their interests and wonderings. Then through scaffolding and identifying children’s zone of proximal development, teachers can plan and implement strategies to meet curriculum guidelines, children’s intentions of learning, and support their connection to nature. Extending learning into the outdoors offers great potential for early childhood education as teachers can consider (be)coming curriculum on the playground and beyond. Although curriculum guidelines, i.e., state standards, were met during the study for school purposes, the data in Chapter IV focused on pre-

reflective and reflective experiences and meaning-making of children as they encountered nature phenomena.

Existing Barriers

Four barriers, as summarized by Dyment (2005), may constitute educators’ lack of using natural environments as a curriculum context impacting both the amount of time and practices in the outdoors are:

1. Fear and concern about children’s health and safety (e.g., issues around

liability).

2. Teacher’s confidence and expertise in teaching and learning outdoors (e.g., lack

of training for teachers).

3. The requirements of school curricula (e.g., mandated curriculum or

standardized testing).

4. Shortages of time, resources, and support (e.g., extra work for teachers, lack of

funding, or transportation complications; p. 29).

Of these barriers, most accredited from my perspective, are the fear and concern about children’s safety and liability and the lack of teachers’ confidence in teaching and learning outdoors. Dependent on government and state policies, teachers in western cultures, are bound to meet state and national standards which leave little room for implementation and funding for desired equipment, materials, and experiences that support children’s needs and interests in the outdoors (Dyment, & O’Connell, 2013;

Little & Wyver, 2008, Stan & Humberstone, 2011; Little & Eager, 2012). Also, teachers feel less compelled to advocate for children’s experiences in the outdoors if, in fact, their

own experiences have been less than favorable (Kellert, 2002; Sobel 2008). Some teachers feel as though they do not have proper training to be effective teaching outdoors, i.e., animal and plant identification facts, while not recognizing the basic benefits of outdoor play and being outdoors for extended periods of time. Additionally, some teachers prefer to stay indoors to avoid inclement weather and getting dirty (Copeland,

Kendeigh, Saelens, Kalkwarf, & Sherman, 2012).

Priorities for Children’s Play in Natural Environments

Regardless of existing barriers, two priorities are necessary for meaningful curriculum in the outdoors. Children must experience natural environments outside of their primary playground. This may mean exploring a small patch of grass outside of the playground fence. The more diverse landscape provides children opportunities for creative play and inventiveness of actions (Fjortoft & Sageie, 2000; Fjortoft, 2001;

Fjortoft, 2004; Staempfli, 2008). Adults may essentially stand back and watch how children relate and/or connect with nature. This freedom outside of the fence with their own guidance, provide opportunities for independence and self-esteem (Murray &

O’Brien, 2005). If children are given enough time to (be)come comfortable with nature

(Murrary & O’Brien, 2005; O’Brien & Murray, 2006) with a teacher’s support and accessibility of natural spaces, children will find value in nature as they connect with natural elements, learn about them, and understand how their own actions affect the environment. The second priority is for teachers to be mindful of their relationships with children, trusting them to make decisions about risk-taking in the outdoors. Stifling children’s risk taking opportunities to reduce adult stress about safety requirements is a

disservice to children. Studies have shown that children are more likely to take unsafe risks if too managed by adults (Stan &Humberstone, 2011; Little, Wyver, & Gibson,

2011). Furthermore, teachers must keep in mind that their attitudes, if negative, influence children’s values of nature and natural environments (Kahn & Kellert, 2002: Sobel,

2008).

Leading Questions and Concepts for Review of Literature

In addition to the research questions guiding this study, two additional questions were used to focus the review of literature about young children and the outdoors: (a)

What part of us as humans draws us to understand and have a connection with nature? and (b) What values and attitudes are developed when children have access to natural environments? Additionally, the following concepts about young children and their experiences of natural environments led the review search: children’s connection with nature, ways of experience in nature, young children’s outdoor play, play in natural environments, and the value of natural environments in early childhood education.

Literature from the fields of early childhood education, environmental education, environmental psychology, and sociology was included in this review to examine the research discussing these questions and concepts.

Trends in the Literature

Some trends that exist within the literature set are: the awareness that children’s connection with nature is fading, the benefits of outdoor play, outdoor environments afford children different opportunities (Gibson, 1979), natural environments offer a variety of loose parts (Nicolson, 1971), natural environments provide opportunities for

more creative play and risk-taking, and children gain the most from outdoor experiences, while having unstructured, free play. Another trend shows that research involving children’s perceptions of the outdoors have taken place outside of the United States, apart from Nature-Based Preschools. Furthermore, few studies have used participatory methods asking children directly about their understandings and reflections of nature and natural environments. These trends were derived from the following set of literature about children, outdoor play, and natural environments.

Our Disconnection with Nature

In the early 20th century, conservationists Liberty Bailey and Anna Comstock were leaders in the Nature Study Movement of North America (Comstock, 1986;

Lorsbach & Jinks, 2013). Comstock, the author of The Handbook of Nature Study, first published in 1911 and reprinted in 1986, suggested that science should be taught based on children’s interests outdoors leading to less unwanted behavior indoors. She also asserted that teachers would also feel less fatigue and stress if they would plan more outdoor experiences. Bailey (1909) added that studying nature should occur in common schools, not universities. She perceived nature study to

designate the movement originating in the common schools to open the pupil’s

mind by direct observation to a knowledge and love of the common things and

experiences in the child’s life and environment. It is a pedagogical term, not a

scientific term (p. 4).

Essentially, the Nature Study Movement led to the discovery of spiritual and personal experiences gained from interaction with the natural world (Armitage, 2009).

Post World War I, the Nature Study Movement diminished as the focus moved from conservation to resource exploitation (Lorsbach & Jinks, 2013). Although fundamentals of the Nature Study Movement were embraced by Progressivism in education, “mass consumerism and commercialized leisure became the popular ethos in the 1920s,” (Armitage, 2009, p. 197). Lack of resources, especially in urban areas, led female teachers to criticism for using textbooks and images to supplement nature experiences, ways of which were considered feminine, during a time when exploitation of female teachers was at a rise (Armitage, 2009, p. 201). Most believed that teaching about nature while being far removed was less than meaningful learning (Lorbach & Jinks,

2013). Although the Nature Study Movement was short-lived, the mission to use natural environments to teach science and connect children to nature has gained attention in the

21st century.

Humans tend to use and mistreat the earth as a manipulative resource when their connection with nature is lost. If children’s connections with nature fade, this will lead to failure in stewardship and greater environmental issues in the future. Some initiatives to

“bring children back to nature” began at the turn of the 21st century with Richard Louv’s

(2005) notion of Nature-Deficit Disorder. Nature-Deficit Disorder is a broader term that

Louv gave to the lack of children being in the natural environment and the imposition of a more enticing fast-paced technology driven world. In Last Child in the Woods, he shared his acknowledgment of the decreased amount of time children spend outdoors in comparison to twenty or even thirty years ago. Louv’s story described his own personal experiences with his children and his reflection considered why children have stopped

spending their days outside. He elaborated on how government, time, fear and “The

Bogeyman Syndrome” are some of the reasons. Parents have less time to be outside with their children and fear that they are not safe enough alone; without supervision, The

Bogeyman will get them (p. 116). His contentions encouraged educators to think about what they could do to get children back outside at school (Clements, 2004; Fjortoft, 2001;

Fjortoft, 2004; Maynard & Waters, 2007: Nedovic & Morrissey, 2013; White &

Stoecklin, 2008).

Over a decade ago, Louv’s groundbreaking work gained the attention of

American legislation and the No Child Left Inside (NCLI) Act (2006) was incepted. The

NCLI Act strived to introduce children to nature while teaching about environmental conservation and the preservation of beauty so that the future of natural environments would be in good hands, literately. Environmentalists suggested that the impact of society and the over-consumption of natural resources by adults were now more detrimental to the environment than natural causes. Chawla (1998) argues that perhaps their childhood is to blame for less than favorable views of nature which led into adulthood. Thus, young children become the source for improving environmental attitudes and values to maintain the potential of natural environments in the future. What better way to get children to develop positive values and attitudes of natural environments than to get them playing outside.

Outdoor Play

Outdoor play refers to the context for children’s physical, cognitive, social, and emotional development outside the classroom (Clements, 2004; NAEYC, 2012, Rivkin,

1995). Mawson (2014) suggested that all outdoor play is structured by the physical and cultural setting and by the values of people maintaining the space. Outdoor play is also the context for risk-taking behavior or risky play as detailed in this review (Little &

Eager, 2010; Little, Wyver, & Gibson, 2011; Mawson, 2014; Sandseter, 2009; Stan &

Humberstone, 2011; Stephenson, 2003; Tovey, 2007). Recognizing the affordances of children’s outdoor contexts puts forth important recommendations for policyholders, teachers, and parents to consider when planning children’s outdoor experiences (Fjortoft,

2001; Fjortoft, 2004; Niklasson & Sandberg, 2010; Nedovic & Morrissey 2013;

Sandseter, 2009). In conjunction with loose parts outdoor play, regardless of context, has the potential to instill children’s cognitive and physical competence as well as foster their connection with nature and natural environments.

The Affordances of Outdoor Play

Several studies considered the affordances (Gibson, 1979) offered by outdoor play, both on traditional playgrounds and in natural environments (Fjortoft, 2001; Fjortoft

2004; Niklasson & Sandberg, 2010; Nedovic & Morrissey, 2013; Sandseter, 2009).

Affordances, summarized by Nedovic & Morrissey (2013), “account for the functional significance or meaning of environmental features for individuals” (p. 283). While generally referring to the physical features of space, affordances vary due to the characteristics of both the individual and the environment. Niklasson & Sandberg

(2010) studied the affordances of public and private space in the outdoors with 103 preschool children and discovered that both climbable features and moldable features

(sand, water, and dirt) offered the most affordance potential. Fjortoft (2001 & 2004)

focused on motor skills the landscape afforded in her study of 46 kindergartners in

Norway. She discussed the differences in topography as potential range of affordance and elaborated on defining affordances using Hefts’ definition (1988) to elicit more understanding;

children perceive the functions of the environment and utilize them for play: If a

tree is climbable it affords climbing; if a stone fits the hand, it is grasp-able or

throw-able and thus affords grasping and throwing. If a slope is smooth and steep

enough it is slide-able and thus affords sliding (p. 36).

Sandseter (2009), also studied affordances but focused on risky play behavior at an indoor preschool and a nature outdoor preschool. Risky play in this study referred to exciting play that could lead to physical injury. She also used Hefts’ definition (1988) of affordances (1988) but then added Kytta’s (2004) perspective of potential affordances and actualized affordances. In her study, the potential affordances were of possible risky- play scenarios at both preschools and the actualized affordances are what the children did. Kytta’s (2004) perspective adds mobility license as a theory used to explain that if children have a license to seek out potential affordances then those affordances become actualized. Like Fjortoft (2001, 2004), Sandseter (2009) found that the naturalized environments afforded the most challenging play and afforded more functional play skills such as running, jumping, throwing, and climbing than the ordinary playground. An important difference of affordance at the preschools was the constraints of a fence around the indoor preschool with a typical playground, which limited some risky play in

comparison to the nature outdoor playground that was up against a forest with no fence where children could possibly run out of sight.

Risky-play is one affordance of the outdoors that has been studied more than others (Little & Eager, 2010; Little, Wyver, & Gibson, 2011; Mawson, 2014; Sandseter,

2009; Stan & Humberstone, 2011; Stephenson, 2003; Tovey, 2007). Risky-play, in connection to children’s physical development, is what most early childhood educators think about in terms of what the outdoors affords children (Stan & Humberstone, 2011).

As explained by Little and Eager (2010), the outdoors provides a “significant context in which children develop the ability to perceive and appraise risks as they learn to avoid injury whilst exploring their environment and learning what their bodies are capable of”

(p. 498). Without appropriate contexts, children’s physical development may be stalled and can “lead to boredom, which then promotes inappropriate risk-taking as children seek to inject excitement and challenge into the experience” (Greenfield, 2003; Little & Eager,

2010).

Both the degree of parent and teacher support of risky-play in the outdoors as well as playground design regulations impact children’s abilities to take safe risks. Mawson

(2014) found various levels of risk-taking support by several teachers and declared, “the more interactive teachers were more comfortable with risky-play and often encouraged the children to physically challenge themselves” p. 521). Teachers need to trust that young children can make their own judgments about risk-taking in the outdoors and that, when given the opportunity, children will challenge themselves physically in a way that is safe. This trusting relationship promotes children’s development in building

confidence and gaining independence in decision making about play. Furthermore,

Maynard and Waters (2007) acknowledged that risk-taking fostered confidence, developed learning paths and dispositions leading to independence, and autonomy in later years. While many teachers are willing to support risk-taking opportunities, Little,

Wyver, and Gibson (2011) pointed out that “the types of playgrounds typically available for young children appear to offer little challenge or opportunity for risky play” (p. 129) creating another barrier for teachers. Playground policyholders emphasize designing spaces that are safe for children and minimalize risk opportunities to meet liability standards. With these limitations on school playgrounds, Sandseter’s claim (2009), that natural environments afford more opportunities for risky play, is reconfirmed as natural environments are less confined and regulated by policy.

Loose Parts

An additional affordance studied in outdoor contexts are Loose Parts (Nicholson,

1971). Loose parts are natural materials that offer endless possibilities of play. Materials such as dirt, mulch, twigs, sand, water, and manipulative props are versatile and can be used to promote daily open-ended, extended play. Nicholson (1971) suggested that “In any environment, both the degree of inventiveness and creativity and the possibilities of discovery are directly proportional to the number and kind of variables in it” (p. 515).

The lack of structure and script of the materials allows children to create any item of their imagination. A significant value of loose parts is that they are easily collected and accessible to children and teachers in all settings. Nedovic and Morrissey (2013) confirmed, “these materials are usually abundant, easily collected, carried, and shaped,

and have what could be characterized as abstract properties that lend themselves to imaginative transformation” (p. 283). Over time child play experts discovered that loose parts can be natural or synthetic, children just prefer to play with materials that can be adapted to their ideas rather than having expensive toys with a prescribed use (Spencer,

2013).

Unstructured, Free Play in the Outdoors

In partnership with a variety of loose parts, long extended periods of free play in the outdoors encourage children to intrinsically be creative, push the boundaries of who they are; they can be loud and boisterous, seek out others socially, take safe risks, and develop connections with nature with less management from adults (Burdette &

Whitaker, 2005; Lester & Maudsley, 2007; Maynard & Waters, 2007; Ouvry, 2003). As shown in previous studies regarding affordances, unstructured free play is better supported in natural environments than typical playgrounds. Children engage in fewer conversations and problem-solving encounters on playgrounds with prescribed play equipment and structures (Frost, 2006; Staempfli, 2009). In addition, Maynard and

Waters (2007) suggest that adults relate differently to children outdoors because there is less attention on safety concerns as children can run freely in more space outdoors.

Furthermore, unstructured free play allows for innovative and child directed play to transpire where children can take control of their own play experience and learn to negotiate relationships with children and adults which leads to social responsibility

(Staempfli, 2009, p. 272).

Nature-Based Preschools in the United States

A newer initiative in the United States to reconnect children with nature was the development of Nature-Based Preschools. While few exist, Bailie (2012) defines nature- based preschools as a state licensed preschool for three- to five-year-olds, housed and/or operated by a nature center or environmental education center. Rachel Larimore, a leader in developing nature-based preschools in Michigan, offered an insight into the joining of two fields, early childhood and environmental education. Nature-Based Preschools: A

Powerful Connection Between Early Childhood and Environmental Education (2011) described both the motivation and purpose of creating nature-based preschools. She emphasized the values of outdoor experiences as others have:

Nature provides endless opportunities for children to find wonder and, in turn ask

questions about the world around them. This helps build their intellectual

capacity while creating a sense of place in the world. This sense of place

contributes to their social and emotional development, and ultimately their sense

of self. Students also develop their social and emotional skills by interacting,

discovering, creating, and problem solving with other children and teachers (p. 3).

Larimore’s (2011) definition of what nature provides children is well aligned with early childhood goals that we aim for indoors. The possibility of offering these same potential objectives outdoors essentially enhances the notion of what early childhood education could be.

Larimore (2011) shared her perspective from the Chippewa Nature Center’s

(CNC) Nature Preschool from Midland Michigan. She explained that elements from the

nature areas offer none of the things generally seen on a “traditional” playground such as swings and slides but that the nature play areas “include lots of natural elements and

“loose parts” such as logs, rocks, and leaves. These loose parts lead to creative, inventive play. Sandboxes, a stump circle for group meetings, a painting easel, a wigwam frame, and hollow logs” (p. 3). Once unstructured free play occurs in the nature play areas, then the group meets on the stump circles to plan their outdoors adventure further from the school. The time spent outdoors makes up more than half of the typical preschool day at the CNC Nature Preschool and weather dependent; the entire length of the day is spent outdoors even rest time.

Larimore also identified other nature centers and preschools that are well developed. New Cannan Nature Center in Connecticut, Kalamazoo Nature Center’s

Nature’s Way Preschool (have been established for more than 35 years), Dodge Nature

Center in West St. Paul, Minnesota, and Schlitz Audubon Center in Milwaukee,

Wisconsin are all centers she acknowledged. Nature-Based Preschools continue to be a growing idea throughout the country but one critique I have is that, even though more than 20 nature-preschools exist within the United States, they seem to be part of or designed within nature centers which do not address the larger issue of trying to reconnect a greater number of today’s young children with nature. What about the preschools maintaining the requirements of state licensing and basic regulated facilities?

Is the possibility of connecting preschool aged children with nature on daily basis only a figment of preschool, environmental and outdoor educator’s imagination?

Forest Schools: An International Initiative

A greater initiative that is taking place internationally is the implementation of

Forest Schools (Knight, 2013; O’Brien & Murray, 2006; Rodgers, Knowles & Sayers,

2012). Forest Schools were developed in the United Kingdom in the mid-1990s as a response to observed practices of Friluftsiv in Scandinavian countries. Friluftsliv expresses the idea that the citizens of Scandinavian countries wish naturally to connect with their environment in many different ways and as often as possible” (Knight, 2013, p.

2). The mission of Forest School is to offer all learners regular opportunities in the outdoors, natural environments or woodland areas with trees, to develop confidence and self-esteem through hands-on experiences. The focus of learning is on the whole child, encouraging children to develop independence and self-esteem through engagement with the natural environment (Murray & O’Brien, 2005; Rodgers, Knowles, & Sayers, 2012;).

Both O’Brien (2009) and Knight (2013) offer noteworthy works highlighting the possibilities of Forest School education. O’Brien (2009) examined practitioners’

(teachers and Forest School leaders) perspectives of children’s experiences of Forest

School. Twenty-four children, aged three to nine, and their teachers were participants in the study. By conducting three research phases at seven schools in Wales and England, she found that the practitioners elicited to eight themes, highlighting the benefits for children and practitioners. The six themes (increase in self-esteem and self-confidence, improvement in social skills, contributes to the development of language and communication skills, improves motivation and encourages concentration, contributes to children’s knowledge and understanding and improves physical motor skills) are what

O’Brien found in support of children’s learning. Two additional themes (new perspectives gained by the practitioners on seeing the children in a different environment, and the ripple effects of the Forest School where children took their experiences home and told family and friends) were also discovered.

She continues to explain the themes of social skills, motivation and concentration, and new perspectives further in hopes that others will consider the aspects of Forest

School education. One important discussion element she considered is that the practitioners saw a keen sense of inspiration in the children after having new experiences in nature. O’Brien discussed how “this can be the case, particularly, for children from more deprived areas who often have little access to, and contact with, nature” (p. 51). An additional element to highlight is that over time practitioners were able to understand their students on a deeper level, both how the children learned and how to create individual goals for each child. Offering children these experiences allows them to understand that learning can take place anywhere, not just inside a classroom.

Sara Knight’s International Perspectives on Forest School: Natural Spaces to

Play and Learn identified the historical context of forest schools as well as how they have become renown across the world. She integrated the work of twenty-two authors from Sweden, Portugal, Brazil, Germany, Slovenia, South Africa, Australia, India,

Canada and the United States to highlight the benefits and value of experiences in the outdoors. For the purpose of this segment, I will highlight the basic principles of forest schools, the commonalities and differences of the studies illustrated in Knight’s work

(2013) and how the forest school movement has influenced the growing body of research on children’s experiences in natural environments.

As forest schools were developed in the UK, practitioners and policy makers within the UK created detailed guidelines and training requirements for those seeking to implement similar practices in their own cultures. Knight exemplified an extended list of principles, developed by the Forest School Association, encompassing “good forest school practice,” including those that follow from the Ethos/definition and more:

1. Forest School is a long-term process with frequent and regular sessions in a

local natural space, not a one-off visit. Planning, adaption, observations and

reviewing are integral elements.

2. Forest School takes place in a woodland or natural wooded environment to

support the development of a relationship between the learner and the natural

world.

3. Forest School aims to promote the holistic development of all those involved,

fostering resilient, confident, independent and creative learners.

4. Forest School offers learners the opportunity to take supported risks

appropriate to the environment and themselves.

5. Forest School is run by qualified Forest School Practitioners who continuously

develop their professional practice.

6. Forest School uses a range of learner-centered processes to create a community

for development and learning.

Each one of these six principles is further explained in detail (Knight, 2013, p. 5) with the tenets of training that forest school practitioners are required to obtain to become a certified Forest School Practitioner. This training is to ensure that the vision of forest school prevails, “thus, a Forest School practitioner has received a minimum training in human development, bush craft, outdoor first aid and the Forest School ethos/definition”

(p. 5). Although Knight’s (2013) argument was situated on the premises of forest school education in the UK, she examined how elements of the approach have been adapted in ten other countries outside of the United Kingdom.

Country/Time Outdoor Initiatives Beliefs & Values Goals Practice

47 Wales Outdoor Learning Prolonged conversations should Barriers stalling natural Children’s use of ‘loose Project in Country be based on children’s initiated experiences should be parts’ inform practice. Park interests in the outdoors and what approached with Teachers engage in they discover independently. appropriate gear and prolonged conversations Time Outdoors: clothing. outdoors that are often child- Four times a year initiated. Germany ZBD (Centre for ‘Near wilderness’ spaces have a Education should occur The ZBD offers courses for Early Education) character that is both familiar and in schools and in formal practitioners to engage in use of wild spaces unfamiliar which serves as a mode and informal places such pedagogy in the outdoors. for children’s learning as in the outdoors. Practitioners learn to “place Time Outdoors: Teachers should activities in nature As often as possible acknowledge that appropriately, relevant to children are dependent children’s stage of on the resources of their development.” direct environment. (Schirp & Vollmar, p. 34) Sweden Two Case Studies Nature is gender-neutral but Allow children to act of Preschools power struggles and ethical how they choose in We share “knowledge and dilemmas still occur outdoors. spaces to foster deeper understanding within the Time Outdoors: understandings about preschool team about how One-two hours/day Outdoor play “cultivates a who they are as people. gender and power structures Four or five hours relationship with nature and a are constructed” (Arlemalm- in forest, once/week caring attitude and develops Outdoors is explored no Hagser & Sandberg, p. 49) environmentally friendly matter what the weather. behavior” (Arlemalm-Hagser & Sandberg, p. 42).

Slovenia Addressing Learning polygons allow The goal of learning in Students develop environmental development of student’s nature is for children to relationships with nature, problems through competencies: “acquire the skills to which in return creatures a learning polygons 1. Cognitive-problem solving live, to learn to be positive attitude leading to 2. Emotional-developing positive independent and act stewardship of the earth. Time Outdoors: attitude towards nature responsibly towards the Students can create their As often as possible 3. Action-transfer knowledge environment and own actions and plans to about the environment into society” (Krajnc & preserve the earth with advocacy actions Korze, p. 54) opportunities for permaculture.

Portugal A doctoral study of From the study’s results, there To emphasize how the Outdoor spaces are in some

4 how outdoor spaces were some positive inclines of outdoors fosters curriculum guidelines but are used adults’ wanting to be outdoors but children’s learning but not all and highlight the the use and length of time spent recognize that adults’ practitioner’s role in Time Outdoors: outdoors was rare. attitudes may become a supporting children’s play in Not every day- barrier to children’s the spaces which can be Thirty-sixty outdoor experiences. limiting. minutes Brazil Exploration of six There is a lost connection with The United Nations Reflect and teach to the sustainability earth. Decade of Education for following questions/ideas: lessons focusing on Sustainable What is sustainability? consumption and “We have developed over time a Development in What do I consume in a consumerism utilitarian relationship with the UNESCO education week? Where do things environment from which we sector that sustainability come from? Needs and Time Outdoors: extract everything to ensure our must be taught in wants, sustainable Needs Based comfort, staying unaware-and schools. consumption, being the unconcerned-about the impacts of change ‘agent.’ These can be our lifestyle” (Grandisoli, p. 79) adapted for all age levels. South Africa A ‘Veggie Bag’ is “Children, who are not in contact Use children’s Develop a veggie bag: used to highlight with their natural worlds, see experiences with the First make decisions about the potential of themselves as disconnected or not veggie bag to connect how to develop the bag. outdoor education being a part of it” (Phenice & them to nature and Then Griffore (2003) nutrition choose the right location for Time Outdoors: sunlight. Next, plant defense Needs Based plants around bag before deciding when to harvest. Australia Bush Kinder: FS Outdoors “offer agency, essential Mission: Build a closer Practical elements to Interpretation to becoming socially active and connection to nature, a consider when creating a empowered participants in a community that values Bush Kinder are: policy, the Time Outdoors: rapidly changing global and participates in location, teacher’s role, Three hours per environment” (Elliott, 2010b, nature-based activities parent engagement, week Elliott, 2013, p. 116) regularly. government role, funding and research Western Outdoor Learning The connection with nature is also Encouragement to value There is a growing notion in Australia Project (Bush spiritual and children should cultural knowledge and Australia that the outdoors is School) with wonder and discover with awe. work with stakeholders a curriculum itself. Aboriginal Children to gain a deeper

Non-verbal signals needed to be understanding of others. Teachers and children must

9 Time Outdoors: considered in the cultural context: be aware and know respect 4 Once per week, all

49 not making eye contact did not and distance from animals if

day mean the Aboriginal children needed were not listening. India Study of children’s Children should be able to move There’s a need to Study showed that children perceptions of their freely and create. develop approaches to prefer experiences outdoors school experience better listen to children, and in nature even when Gardening, pruning and tree “so their views can be they are not directly asked Time Outdoors: planting are essential for children taken in account when about it and teachers should Short recess spans and “too much emphasis on planning and designing consider outdoor curriculum indoor learning can cut children responsive learning experiences. off from community life” (Kanyal, environments” (Kanval, p. 186). p. 199). USA, The analysis of use U.S: Trends show the U.S. is US: The hope is that US: Common Core Canada, of outdoor spaces moving away from outdoor teachers would embrace Standards (2010) are the Europe for learning learning environments. outdoor experiences and basis and focus for EUR: Increase in adventure push for promotion by education. However, USA: Thirty playgrounds and forest schools. policy-holders. children will not learn minutes Canada: Nearby forest area of the Canada: FS highlighted stewardship for the earth environment should act as a third the importance of using inside the classroom. Canada: teacher. all accessible outdoor As often as possible spaces near their school. Canada: A Reggio-inspired

Direct instruction that takes place project in British Columbia Europe: indoors is more valued than Europe: Adventure at University Highlands uses As often as possible outdoor unstructured play. playgrounds are a place sustainability as a primary for meeting, building learning guide. friendships and skills. A variety of materials are Europe: Depending on used (old boards, fire legislation, adventure pits, recycled materials) playground may or may not to allow children to be an option for educational create their own spaces. purposes. Over 1,000 adventure playgrounds have been created in Europe. Figure 1. International Outdoor Initiatives. Interpretation of Knight, S. (Eds.) (2013). International perspectives on forest school: Natural spaces to play and learn. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.

Figure 1: International Outdoor Initiatives serves as an interpretation of the beliefs, values, goals and practices of each country as well as what the outdoor initiative entailed and how much time children spent outdoors. Of the ten countries examined, there were several commonalities amongst the studies as well as differences all referring to the use of the outdoors as an avenue for education. Some commonalities amongst the studies were: the view that experiences in the outdoors lead to creative, independent and resilient children (UK, Germany, Australia, Wales, and India) the assertion that children will develop positive attitudes towards the environment after spending a lengthy amount of time connecting with nature (Germany, Sweden, Slovenia, South Africa), the realization that children will only find utilitarian usage if the connection with nature is lost (United Kingdom, Sweden, South Africa, Slovenia, Brazil), and a growing claim that the outdoors is a curriculum itself (Australia, India).

One significant difference was the range of time children spent outdoors, from 30 short minutes, not every day, to full days more than once a week. Another difference to notice was the approaches towards outdoor education and/or experience in natural environments based on needs and cultures. Some studies focused on the notion of preserving the earth and so studied content with students involving sustainability, preservation and consumerism (Slovenia, Brazil, South Africa, USA) while others focused on what the natural environment does for student learning and development

(Canada, Europe, Australia, India, UK, Wales, Germany, Sweden). Knight’s

International Perspectives on Forest School: Natural Spaces to Play and Learn is a key resource for this study as my theoretical framework of how children should learn and

experience nature aligns well with the foundations/ ethos and values of forest school education and its social constructivist approach. Conceptualizing how each country suggests the use of the outdoors as a mode of education impacts my own understanding of what research is needed and how my line my inquiry is pertinent in the United States and will make an important contribution to the fields of early childhood and environmental education. Studying how young children experience natural environments may impact future educators’ understanding of how young children are able to understand, learn and connect with nature even after the connection has been lost.

Sharing Nature with Preschoolers

Many of the studies examined in this review suggest the ways in which researchers have tried to understand young children in the outdoors. The age of children in “preschool” is interpretive throughout the world and varies based on each country’s education policies. Outside of the Knight’s (2013) accounts of children in forest schools, few studies have identified what children value and experience in the outdoors; especially the youngest of preschool, children aged three and four. In general, children ages five and older have been studied and sought out as participants to share their experiences using The Mosaic Approach (see Chapter III) such as drawings, walking tours, photo- elicitation interviews and focus group conversations. Although most research does not aim to specifically understand the experiences of three- and four-year-olds, it is possible that these methods are conceptualized as “too complex” for children younger than five years old. This insight offers strong potential for this study based on the conceptual

argument that children who are four can share what they value and how they experience nature.

CHAPTER III

QUALITATIVE METHODOLOGY

Qualitative Research Definition and Position

I drew upon Denzin and Lincoln’s (2011) definition of qualitative research to position this study’s paradigm. Qualitative research is defined as involving, “an interpretive, naturalistic approach to the world where qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them” (p. 3). The intention of this study was to understand young children’s experiences of nature (phenomena) by observing and capturing their pre-reflective responses and reflective responses (meanings). My position rests at the intersection of re-conceptualist ideology and phenomenological inquiry to conceptualize ethically listening to children and the construct of be(in)nature (Dahlberg & Moss, 2005;

Davies, 2014; Taylor, 2013; Rinaldi, 2004, 2006; Sellers, 2013; van Manen, 2014). A

“listening context” was put forth as children shared their thinking of nature and, “felt legitimized to represent their theories and offer their own interpretation of a particular question” (Rinaldi, 2004, p. 3). Based on the possibilities of be(in)nature, children may describe their experiences of nature with the understanding that:

1. They are nature. They can be(in) nature because they are living and have

similar characteristics to the living species they discover.

2. They can play and manipulate nature and its materials in, be (in) nature.

3. They can recognize be(in)nature or both. They can understand that they are

nature and might manipulate nature with intentional empathy and care.

In this chapter, I will emphasize an interconnection that can exist amongst conceptual frameworks and the possibilities that come forth when considering nature as a social construct as well as a set of research questions based on these premises.

Phenomenological Inquiry: Platforms of Pre-reflection and Reflection

Phenomenological research begins with wonder. The wonderings about how life is experienced in the moment, such as the moment of taking a walk or texting a friend

(van Manen, 2014). Doing phenomenology means that the researcher gains a “grasp of the very nature of the thing” (van Manen, 1990, p. 177) and understands that “the reality of an object is only perceived within the meaning of the experience of an individual”

(Creswell, 2014, p. 78). Furthermore, “phenomenology is primarily a philosophic method for questioning, not a method for answering or discovering or drawing determinate conclusions” (van Manen, 2014, p. 29).

For the purposes of this study, the object being realized is nature within the meanings given by preschoolers. On the platforms of pre-reflection and interpretive reflection, I captured both the pre-reflective experiences (the living now) and reflective experiences (meditated now) of four- and five-year-olds. Van Manen (2014) defined the differences between the living now and meditated now within phenomenological inquiry.

He stated:

Phenomenology is the project that tries to describe the pre-reflective meaning of

the living now. However, phenomenology is also aware that when we try to

capture the “now” of the living present in an oral or written description, then we

are already too late. The moment becomes objectified—it turns from the

subjectivity of living presence into an object of reflective presence (p. 34).

As humans, everything we do is an experience. We can recognize and recall experiences on the basis that we can name and describe them, but van Manen (2014) argues that,

“perhaps experiences only come into being experiences because we can name them and describe them” (p. 35). Phenomenology gives structure to our experiences by bringing our words and concepts of the reflective presence for others to grasp. Perhaps considering the pre-reflective and reflective experiences of young children from a phenomenological position will entice new ideas for how to capture young children’s meanings and what the practice means for early childhood education.

This study includes anecdotes of children’s experiences with(in) nature to encourage consideration for how children’s pre-reflective experiences can be captured with videos and photos while practicing ethical listening and a phenomenological attitude

(Dahlberg & Moss, 2005; Dockett, Einardottir, & Perry, 2009; Finlay, 2008; Rinaldi,

2004; Rinaldi, 2006; van Manen, 2014). Initially, I predicted that the living now would be moments I would record in The Log Playground and the meditated now would be discovered afterwards through interviews. However, after reviewing video data, I learned that some experiences lead to both pre-reflective and reflective experience in the moment. Some pre-reflective experiences lead to immediate reflection as emphasized in the section of Chapter IV titled: Phenomenon II Nature is Unpredictable and Surprising.

This section highlighted Fitz’ experiences with earth worms and how he dealt with worm poop. The moment was monumental to the study as Fitz shared his thinking aloud and

enticed others to join with both pre-reflective and reflective experiences. These experiences were captured in The Log Playground and when we reflected at school.

Other anecdotes suggest that children may need a reflective invitation to grasp deeper meanings given to experience. Both phenomenological writing and listening methods are explained further for a practical understanding of approaching data generation with children.

Phenomenological Writing: Hermeneutic Epoché-reduction & Anecdotes

Epoché-reduction

The act of capturing the pre-reflective and reflective experiences of preschoolers calls for careful consideration when selecting methodology. The Hermeneutic Epoché- reduction method, when writing a phenomenological text, begins with the understanding that the researcher cannot deny their own pre-understandings of the phenomenon itself and must practice radical openness to the phenomenon while bracketing all interpretation and assumptions (van Manen, 2014, p. 224). Bracketing refers to acknowledging one’s own interpretations and assumptions separately from the generated data. However, when co-constructing knowledge with children in this study, my own pre-understandings and assumptions were revealed before, simultaneously, and afterwards rather than separate.

Bracketing all interpretation and assumptions was not possible in this study as my initiative was, instead, to research with children, listening and understanding together.

Practicing with radical openness (van Manen, 2014) allowed me to video record children’s direct experiences of nature, pre-reflective or reflective, while journaling about my own thoughts or assumptions so that data generation and the development of a

phenomenological text would encompass it all, children’s meanings and my narrative interpretation.

Finlay (2008) suggests that an alternative to separating one’s pre-assumptions is to practice with a phenomenological attitude. This means working with a process of teeter-totting back and forth from personal assumptions and returning to look at participants’ experiences in a fresh way. As stated before, because everything we do can have a reflective phenomenological interpretation attached to it; critical decisions were made about what experiences to “bring to life” while maintaining a phenomenological attitude. Videos, photographs, and reflection invitations, as adaptations of The Mosaic

Approach, were used as potential ways to understand children’s reflections. We should remember that all children are unique and reflect in a variety of ways. These methods do not expose the explicit meanings of one specific person but rather, to suggest that these meanings are an example of a possible human experience but in our case meanings constructed as a group. Furthermore, the intent of writing will be to produce a collection of anecdotes, “that resonate and make intelligible the kinds of meanings that we seem to recognize in life as we live it” (van Manen, 2014, p. 221).

The Anecdote

Writing anecdotes is a method of capturing how people talk about their experiences. The use of anecdotes in early childhood education is not a new method of observation (Carr, 2000; Clark, 2004; Clark, 2007; Clark & Moss, 2001; Clark & Moss,

2005). Partnered with methods of phenomenology, “anecdotes recreate experiences, but now already in a transcended (focused, condensed, intensified, oriented, and narrative)

form” (van Manen, 2014, p. 250). When inviting children to reflect on their experiences, their words partnered with my narrative interpretation became anecdotes of our experience. van Manen (2014) described anecdotes as powerful lived experience descriptions to be written with seven considerations:

1. An anecdote is a very short and simple story.

2. An anecdote usually describes a single incident.

3. An anecdote begins close to the central moment of the experience.

4. An anecdote includes important concrete details.

5. An anecdote often contains several quotes (what was said, done, and so on).

6. An anecdote closes quickly after the climax or when the incident has passed.

7. An anecdote often has an effective or “punchy” last line: it creates punctum (p.

252).

The idea of punctum is to leave a lasting impression in the reader. For the purposes of this study, photographs will be used to capture snapshots of pre-reflective experience and reflective drawings with children’s one line statement about their experience. This specific data will allude to the punctum of the experiences of the living now and the mediated now of young children.

Double Hermeneutic

The structure of double hermeneutic interpretation elucidates the process of how preschooler’s experiences were conveyed. Smith, Flowers, and Larkin (2009) in

Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) suggest that double hermeneutic interpretation refers to “the researcher trying to make sense of the participant trying to

make sense of what is happening to them” (p. 3). IPA seeks to understand the phenomena for what it is and not within confines of predefined analysis. Another sense of double hermeneutic is to consider how the study was interpreted, on empathy or suspicion. IPA considers both, that “the phenomena is examined in its own terms but then outside ideology can be used to “draw out” the experience” (Smith, Flowers, &

Larkin, 2009, p. 36). IPA also rests heavily on reflective experiences and not on pre- reflective experiences (van Manen, 2014). However, by studying both pre-reflective and reflective experiences, in the moment and after the fact, a final sense of “double” is illuminated, as the parts become the whole in phenomenological understanding.

Method of Ethical Listening

Children’s anecdotes, words, and actions, were gathered based on ethical listening. This phrase, ethical listening, conceptually stemmed from social constructivist

(Bruner, 1960; Vygostky, 1978; Demeritt, 2001; MacNaughton, 2003) and re- conceptualist literature (Dahlberg & Moss, 2005; Rinaldi, 2006; Taylor, 2013; Sellers,

2013; Davies, 2014) and captures my intentions in approaching research with young children. It was a priority to see children as active members of their own learning with the rights to participation and voice. To push the ethical scope further, children were teachers or agents of their own learning rather than innocent “be-comings” that will

“become” adults (James & Prout, 1997; Davies, 2014) and so adults listened to children with the same intent that adults hoped children would listen in the classroom. The practical grounds for ethical listening, informing this study, arose from the schools of

Reggio Emilia, whose preschool workers think differently about defining listening as a

thoughtless act, hearing sounds, but instead a pedagogy of listening (Dahlberg & Moss,

2005). The difference in thinking considers listening to be about, “being able to hear the ideas and theories of the Other, and to treat them seriously and with respect, neither ignoring them nor dismissing them for not providing the right answer” (Dahlberg &

Moss, 2005, p. 99). Furthermore, Rinaldi (2001b) shares an aspect of listening that philosophically aligns with phenomenological understanding:

Listening is not easy. It requires deep awareness, and at the same time a

suspension of our judgments, and above all our prejudices; it requires openness to

change. It demands that we have clearly in mind the value of the unknown and

that we are able to overcome the sense of emptiness and precariousness that we

experience whenever our certainties are questioned. Listening as the premise for

any learning relationship—learning that is determined by the “learning subject”

and takes shape in his or her mind through action and reflection (ibid: 80-81).

Like the hermeneutic epoché-reduction method, ethical listening requires that our attitude allows us to put aside our judgments and our own knowledge, not deny them, and to hear and understand how others experience. Furthermore, obtaining children’s assent throughout the research process, continually asking children for clarity, and providing space for them to choose when and how to participate, encouraged children’s leadership in the study.

Research Questions

The following research questions were posed to guide my exploration of children’s pre-reflective and reflective experiences of nature:

1. How do preschool children, ages four and five, experience (interact and

respond to the direct physical elements) an outdoor wetlands environment near

their school?

2. How do young children socially construct (create meanings) about nature in a

group setting?

3. How do young children’s meanings of nature emerge and change over a school year?

While the wording of my research questions separate children and adults, it was my intention that we would experience nature together. Because I led the research study, I like to think that by using the method of ethical listening, children’s experiences took precedent and I helped others find value and meaning in our work together.

Research Context

This study took place during the 2015-2016 academic school year, from

September 2015 through May 2016, at a university laboratory school in Northeastern

Ohio. The university laboratory school served 135 children between the ages of 18 months and six years old. Based on social constructivism and a history of studying the

Reggio Emilia approach to education, the school employs an inquiry-based curriculum that widely supports inquiry in the outdoors. The children and teachers often explore natural environments on a weekly or monthly basis in small groups to support inquiry based on children’s individual interests. For this study, the site was purposefully selected based on (1) willingness to participate in a long-term research study with ongoing, flexible contact with the researcher and (2) a curriculum that regularly engaged young children’s experiences in a nearby natural environment.

Participants

Once approval of the study from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) was obtained, participants were chosen based on their willingness to participate. Because of the research methods of ethical listening, epoché-reduction writing with a phenomenological attitude and the goal to notice children’s pre-reflective and reflective experiences, fourteen participants were invited. Prior to deciding on this number of participants, I invited the site’s outdoor educator, Tess, to join the study. Tess and I decided on this number based on our experience working with small groups of children in the past. We believed that fourteen participants was the maximum number of children, working with two adults, to ensure our confidence in upholding children to a more equal researcher status with each voice having equal weight. All participants were invited by

Tess with transparency that no opinion would be displayed based on their decision to participate and to avoid any undue favoritism, coercion, or unethical persuasion felt from my position as both a teacher and researcher.

The participants were children, ages four and five years old, who attended full- day preschool. The children were of diverse cultural backgrounds, and two had English as their second language. The children were selected for invitation by Tess from two preschool classroom rosters of four and five-year-olds. Once selected for invitation, I invited the parents and children to participate through face-to-face conversations. When parents gave consent for their child’s participation in the study, the children were read aloud the IRB approved assent script which allowed them to verbally decide to participate. Parents acted as witnesses for their child’s assent, and both parents and

children were aware that their decision would not impact their experience at the school.

Of the fourteen invited participants-researchers, twelve consented/assented to participate.

Three children signed their names under their parents’ to show additional willingness to participate.

Chapter II, Review of the Literature, suggests that research with three-year-olds in natural environments is needed to have a stronger understanding of preschooler’s outdoor experiences in the United States. While recognizing this need, Tess and I made an ethical decision to not include three-year-olds in this study for several reasons. Our preschool classrooms are mixed aged which means that, typically, children stay in preschool for two years. As three-year-olds, the children learn about the preschool routines and skills and what it means to work in a group setting. The four- and five-year-olds serve as role models and lead most of the inquiries after having had an entire year to learn the basics.

Additionally, the four- and five-year-olds explored the outdoors the year prior and had already learned the skills needed to stay in a group, exhibit safe risk-taking behavior, explore nature based on their own inquiries, and take responsibility for their actions. Not including three-year-olds was a hard decision but it meant that I could have a stronger focus on phenomenologically understanding nature as a phenomenon.

Researcher Position Regarding Research with Children

Participating in research with children is a relatively new approach to capturing children’s voices in attempt to not marginalize their position in society (Dahlberg &

Moss, 2005; Davies, 2014; MacNaughton, 2003; Moss & Pence, 2007; Moss, 2012;

Rinaldi, 2006; Taylor, 2013). Viewing children as “objects,” with a focus on

development psychology and universal stages of development and socialization, has dominated the way children have been perceived (Dahlberg, Moss, & Pence, 2007). The study design of phenomenology seeks to understand the phenomenon by inquiring into the meanings of our experience as we live them. My goal was to inquire into how young children experienced nature and empowering them as researchers was key to understanding. Participatory methods such as those in The Mosaic Approach (Clark,

2008) provide the opportunity to “empower children in decision-making processes that affect them” (McTavish, Streelasky, & Coles, 2012). For the purposes of engaging in research with children, children from my own preschool classroom and those from another preschool classroom were invited to participate. Because there were only two adult researchers using the phenomenological methodology, not all members of both classrooms were invited to participate. By only selecting fourteen children, we could ensure that children were empowered to study nature with us with more equal participation and voice.

While I initiated the study, I had hoped children would still view me as an equal research participant. The existing power between the children and me could not be denied. However, adapted methods of The Mosaic Approach (Clark, 2008) and phenomenology (van Manen, 2014; Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2009) were employed to try to dissolve the teacher-child hierarchy. Children could choose to not participate in any given nature experience and could request to reflect at another time. Also, adapted methods of The Mosaic Approach allowed the children to choose when and how to participate. For example, they could choose to watch a video or create a book based on

their experiences or could choose to just talk about the experience. Phenomenology as a study design encouraged me to consciously listen and capture as many experiences possible in an attempt to understand nature from children’s perspectives. Having Tess assist in capturing the children’s experiences and caring for the everyday needs allowed us to capture the most responses possible. Although teacher-child power dynamics can never be truly equalized, children are empowered when their thinking is the core of the study. From my perspective, the existing relationship I had with the participants from my own classroom allowed an even a stronger sense of trust and encouraged the children’s openness to share their pre-reflective and reflective experiences.

Data Generation

Methods adapted from The Mosaic Approach (Clark, 2008) were employed to capture children’s pre-reflective and reflective experiences while considering their right to choose when and how to participate as well as how much to “say” about their experiences in the wetlands environment. The Mosaic Approach is a meaningful way research can be conducted with young children (MacNaughton, 2003; Rinaldi, 2006;

Clark, 2008) and asks the question, “What does it mean to be in this place?” which may be interpreted as, “What does it mean to be you in this place now, in this present moment, in the past, and in the future? (Clark, 2008, p. 17) A goal of using The Mosaic Approach is to provide research methods that promote children’s confidence in answering a question with no “wrong” answer (Clark, 2008). Each element of The Mosaic Approach encourages a different level of engagement, from talking or watching videos to creating books or drawings about their experience.

The methods that were adapted were Magic Carpet and child-interviewing. Magic

Carpet, a method where children typically view a slideshow of photographs from the experience, was revised to offer videos captured by the children or me. This adaptation of the magic carpet offered a less product-oriented level of engagement that was welcomed by the children who did not feel as comfortable drawing, or writing, or had less experience taking photographs. Child-interviewing, a method of short, semi- structured interviews, was also revised to be an open invitation for reflection that could occur at any moment initiated by the children or me. The six pieces of The Mosaic

Approach, in Figure 2: Ways of Reflecting adapted from Clark (2008), provided an avenue for participants to choose how and when to share their meanings of experience:

Ways of Reflecting with The Mosaic Approach Observations Qualitative accounts of how children respond and experience nature Child-interviewing A reflection invitation conducted one-on-one or in (adapted) a group, initiated by the children or me Photography/bookmaking Children’s photographs of “important things” and books created with children’s own photos, words, and drawings Tours Tours of spaces led and documented by children

Map making Children create 2D representations (drawings/photos) of the space

Magic carpet (adapted) Children view videos of the experience captured by children or me

Figure 2. Ways of Reflecting adapted from Clark (2008).

Establishing Rigor: Phases of Data Generation

The goal of these research methods, The Mosaic Approach and the phenomenological hermeneutic epoché-reduction, was to offer ways of possible

elicitation while letting participants lead how to share their meanings. For this study, tentative phases of data generation were also described in Figure 3: Phases of Data

Generation. The type of mosaic “piece,” phenomenological method and phenomenological interpretation in terms of pre-reflective and reflective experience were predicted for general researcher organization. Participants chose which pieces of The

Mosaic Approach were used to elicit their meanings of nature while my own interpretations considered if they illuminated a reflection that was pre-reflective or reflective based on the hermeneutic epoché-reduction understanding leading to a phenomenological text.

Possible Duration Mosaic “Piece”/ Possible Data Phenomenological Phenomenological Generated Connection Method Two hours/week Observations All mosaic pieces Pre-reflective &/Or Reflective Up to two hours/week Video observations Videos, children’s Pre-reflective &/Or five-15 min segments for experiences, Reflective transcription children’s voice, anecdotes 15-20 min /week Photography/ book Children’s own Pre-reflective making photographs

Book Making Reflective

Five-10 min /week Tours Children’s own Pre-reflective &/Or (child initiated) photos, anecdotes Reflective

15-20 min /week Mapmaking Children’s 2D Reflective representations of nature 15-30 min /week Magic Carpet Children’s choice Reflective (adapted) of videos to be reviewed Five-30 minutes Child-interviewing Children’s words, Reflective (child or researcher (adapted) theories, initiated) wonderings

Children’s interpretations of researcher’s Children’s & Researcher’s Reflections & Researcher’s Children’s videos/photos

Children’s interpretation of their own videos/photos Entire Length of Study Researcher Anecdotes Pre-Reflective & epoché-reduction: Reflective Researcher will reflect in journal following each nature visit Following Data Generation Researcher’s Narratives & Reflective Development of Engagement with Phenomenological Data Analysis

Text Figure 3. Phases of Data Generation. This chart illustrates the way of reflecting or phenomenological method used to generate data.

Participant Observation Videoing

Participant observations through ongoing videoing was used to capture children’s experiences and to engage in visible listening (Rinaldi, 2006) with children as co- researchers in socially constructing meanings of nature. When children were engrossed in nature, I videoed their pre-reflective and reflective experiences. Children were aware that they could also operate the video recorder, by request, at any time. Videoing occurred once a week on Wednesdays lasting from 60-120 minutes. Videoing was stopped and resumed many times to meet the children’s everyday needs, and my goal was to capture five to 20 minute segments for magic carpet opportunities and transcription purposes. Rinaldi (2006) describes visible listening through the construction of traces.

The traces record the learning process but also make the learning possible by making it visible. Videos and photos captured children in the moment as they responded and interacted with nature, i.e., commenting on the size of trees worms wiggling. Videos captured children’s words and actions verbatim so that I could offer future viewing as a mosaic piece, magic carpet, but also so that I could reflect, interpret, and develop a phenomenological text.

The videos allowed for running record transcription. Running records, like anecdotes, capture children’s conversations and actions over time and include as much detail as possible (Morrison, 2008). Running record transcription allowed me to employ

Smith, Flowers, and Larkin’s (2009) first two steps of data analysis, Reading and Re- reading and Initial Noting. We traveled to the Log Playground for eight months, over one school year, including a spring and winter break, leaving 40 hours of videos, and

2400 minutes of experience for transcription. Reading and re-reading ensured that the transcriptions were accurate and that my initial noting was comprehensive of the data.

Child-led Interviews

Children were invited to participate in reflection conversations immediately after their direct experience with(in) nature or during a natural break in experience such as when I saw children rest on the logs or ground. Often children initiated reflections on our walk back to school. Children could initiate this conversation or wait for my lead. If children said, “not right now,” I asked them to reflect with me on another day. Once we returned to school following each nature experience, children were presented with different opportunities to represent their thinking using The Mosaic Approach. Children were encouraged to choose a method of representation through drawings (a sketch about the experience or bookmaking), or could choose to view videos or photos they or I captured (magic carpet) and then share their verbal reflections. If they appeared stuck but wanted to participate, I asked the following questions based on my own observations of their experiences and/or offered a video or photo we captured:

1. Tell me what it was like to be in the meadow, or named space.

a. What was it like to feel/hear/see/taste/smell that?

b. What did you think about when it was happening?

c. What are you thinking about now when you look at the photo/drawing?

2. Tell me/Show me what is important about the photo/drawing.

These interview questions served as possibilities to encourage the children to talk about their experiences while I listened to other ideas that they may have shared during the

reflection conversations. These reflection conversations took place in nature or right inside our school by the front doors. If children chose to view videos or photos of their experience, we watched them in a technology supported classroom different from our own. The time of the reflection invitations did change after week three of visiting The

Log Playground together, see Reflexivity in Data Generation: Adjustments and

Challenges (p. 64). Based on previous research suggesting ways of interviewing young children (Graue & Walsh, 2003; Waller, 2006, 2007; Einardóttir, 2007; Merewether &

Fleet, 2013), my goal was to carefully pose questions while not misleading their responses with any opinions or judgments. Rather than asking, “What was great about

The Log Playground, I asked, “What was it like?” I prioritized trying to capture children’s reflections to elucidate meaning while interviewing. The following figure,

Figure 4. Ways of Questioning, highlights the many other possible ways of encouraging children to share their experiences in the study. Examples of using verbal prompts included:

Researcher’s Questions Other Ways to Elicit Questions

1. Tell me what it was like to be in The Log In the Log Playground, we were laughing a Playground or named space? lot when that frog jumped, can you tell me about what you did next?

What happened when you crawled on the log? a) What was it like to When we were walking in the trees with the feel/hear/see/taste/smell that? small branches, what did you notice? What b) What did you think about when it was did you see? happening? c) What are you thinking about now when Can you show me or tell me what you were you look at the photo/drawing? thinking about when that branch broke?

What is happening in this photo? Can you tell me about your drawing?

2. Tell me/Show me what is important about Is there a part of that video you want to see the photo/video/drawing? again? Is there a photo you want to see again to talk more about? Figure 4. Ways of Questioning. This chart illustrates possible ways of eliciting questions.

Bookmaking, Tours, and Magic Carpet

During our nature experiences, I video recorded as many aspects of each experience as possible. Often the children led me to certain areas in The Log Playground

(tours) and asked me to video certain experiences, such as the movement of a centipede.

During our reflective conversations, the children often chose to review the videos and photos with me and then told me more about their experiences. Children seemed to favor this option of reflecting as it offered a less product oriented response if they did not feel like drawing or making a book at the time. For example, Zeke initiated a reflection by asking, “Can you show me the movie when I swung off the monkey bar?” After watching the video together, he said, “Wow. I swung high. I didn’t know I could do that.” Like other methodological data creation strategies, I offered this mosaic option of reflection after each nature experience, and I audio recorded their responses. If the children chose booking making or drawing to reflect, I handwrote their words and then read them back to them for clarification. These reflection invitations occurred right when we arrived back at school and included all who were willing to participate. Tess and I each had one video camera which meant that only two children could reflect on the videos at once.

Others would then choose to draw if they did not want to wait to watch the videos.

Background of Researchers

My role in this phenomenological study involved my participation as both a teacher and a researcher. I currently work as a preschool teacher at the research site and

hold a Master’s degree in education. I have worked at the university laboratory school for eight years. During the data generation phase of the study, I invited Tess, the site’s outdoor educator, to help facilitate children’s everyday needs in a section of the wetlands called The Log Playground so that I could take on a stronger researcher role to collect participant observations and children’s pre-reflective and reflective experiences with video and photo documentation. For the past eight years, I have been traveling to the wetlands meadow space with young children. The Log Playground is a space within the wetlands that I have been visiting for three years with children. My interest in research with young children in natural environments stem from my knowledge of nature as a spontaneous entity. I recognized the possibilities that exist in nature to capture pre- reflective and reflective experiences that will lend to the development of a phenomenological text as well which might shape possibilities for practice and research in Early Childhood Education. Phenomenology allows adults to listen and capture children’s in- the-moment experiences so that they can invite children to reflect on them later. While in the act of experiencing, we do not always notice the possibility for reflection and meaning-making.

Tess, a former teacher and recently the outdoor educator at the research site, also has a Master’s degree in education and has traveled to the outdoor wetlands with children for nearly thirteen years. As the outdoor educator of the laboratory school, she plans and implements experiences both indoors and outdoors regarding nature. Before accepting the position as outdoor educator, she taught in a classroom at the laboratory school for eight years. Her stewardship for the earth has encouraged the children and me to think

differently about our responses to nature and the importance of respect for living things.

As an outdoor educator, she planned experiences indoors and outdoors, supporting children’s understanding and learning interests of nature and natural environments. Her responsibilities and role at our school made her a perfect candidate to support the goals of this research study.

Roles of Researchers

During the study, I primarily generated data with children while Tess attended to children’s everyday needs. My roles were to video record interactions with(in) nature, conduct the reflection interviews and ways of reflecting through adaptations of The

Mosaic Approach, take notes, interpret and analyze the data and write a phenomenological text. After three weeks of participant observations, I was able to maintain these roles but I suggested that Tess also video record children’s experiences and that she would write children’s descriptions of their drawings verbatim immediately after for additional understanding. Children from my own classroom gravitated towards sharing their experiences with me and children from the other classroom gravitated toward sharing their experiences with Tess. Over time this changed, but initially it was valuable to use two recorders and we continued to use two throughout the study. Tess would stop more often than myself to meet children’s everyday needs so that I could focus more on children’s interactions and meaning-making.

Everyday Needs

Everyday needs involved Tess’s support in assisting children who needed a Band-

Aid, a shoe tied, a bathroom break or other specific care from an adult. Even with Tess’s

assistance, I acknowledged that my roles of teacher and researcher could not be fully separated especially when some of the participants were members of my own classroom and I would stop recording when needed. My intention was that by inviting participants from another classroom, less bias accounts could also be incorporated in the phenomenological text. Over time, the children formed relationships with each other and with Tess and I which seemed to blend the group and the divide between classrooms began to fade. By the eighth week, all twelve children were inviting Tess or myself into their experiences based on our proximity.

Video Recording

Once entering The Log Playground, Tess and I would both record any interactions with nature, only stopping when needing to for everyday needs. Many of the videos incorporate interactions in nature and conversation about everyday needs, where the camera could still be held with one hand, because my hope was that by videoing it all, we would capture an honest account of how children understand and come to know nature. I would also video record any spontaneous interviewing or times when children invited me to reflect with them. This meant that I would rely on the audio recording capability of the video recorder when I would put it down to reflect with children. We rarely video recorded experiences until we got to our planned destination which was most often at The

Log Playground. At the end of each trip, Tess would give me her video recorder to download the videos and charge the device.

Video Reviewing and Note Taking

Note taking in nature while video recording and attending to children’s everyday needs was difficult to manage. In order to take notes, I recorded myself saying into the video camera, “write about this more,” at spontaneous times while being with children.

There was not a systematic approach to this method but I was able to then reflect on my experiences when I reviewed the videos and heard my comment. Additionally, I would write notes reflecting on our trip for fifteen to thirty minutes, three hours after each journey in The Log Playground. This allowed me to be out of my teacher role when my workday ended so I could focus on research.

Videos were reviewed once initially for note taking purposes and my own reflections and then reviewed multiple times for transcription. Once videos were transcribed I was able to make decisions about which ones to illuminate in the phenomenological text as discussed later (p. 85). Videos were relied on heavily for understanding children’s meaning-making as I could review the videos as often as needed to understand. Next, I could intersect my notes, any audio recorded reflections and the children’s drawings to support several stories of punctum in each phenomenon. My goal was to have at least one drawing or way of reflecting of each child represented. In the end, I was able to do both. The drawings are labeled with the illustrator’s names but the verbal reflections were written into the stories in Chapter IV. Once the transcriptions and stories of punctum were written in Chapter IV and Figure 7 was developed, the phenomena were named, completing the phenomenological text.

Data Management and Analysis

Once all of the data was generated, careful decisions were made to decide which video and audio recordings would be transcribed and which Ways of Reflecting would be included to create a phenomenological text. Decisions on which audio and video recordings to transcribe based on the following parameters:

1. Any child initiated and requested audio recordings of reflection conversations.

2. Any audio recordings where children assented to talk about nature with me and

respond to my questions.

3. Any videos of moments when children displayed first a pre-reflective response

and a following reflective response within five to ten minutes.

4. Any videos of moments when children requested a video recording.

5. Any created Way of Reflecting, primarily drawings, that children assented to

me sharing with others and involved nature.

These parameters allowed me to discard any data generated that children decided not to share with others and any data that children created that was not involving our experiences with(in) nature such as a drawing of a spaceship or their family. To show the children I still valued their reflections about topics outside our experiences, I first asked them to share their responses and would follow up with, “I value your ideas, but I am hoping to only share drawings about our experiences in The Log Playground for our study. Would you like to take this drawing home?” Towards the end of the study, several children would first draw a reflection about their experiences with(in) nature prior to drawing additional pieces to immediately take home. Children’s drawings that they had

assented to be shared with others were copied at the end of the school day and then sent home the following morning.

Pre-reflective and Reflective Interpretation

Van Manen (2014) described how when we try to explain the “now,” in the moment, we are already too late because it has already been objectified into a “meditated now.” For this study, I hoped to get closer to the “now” of young children, to get a better understanding of preschooler’s experiences in the “now” by capturing their immediate responses to nature with video and photo observations. For instance, when a boy suddenly screeches, “Ahhh-ahh-ee!” in response to a frog that just landed by his boot.

He bends down and scoops it up and says, “Boy, this thing is wiggly!” In this moment if I would have captured his screech, captured his facial response and him carefully picking up the frog, before stating “Boy, this thing is wiggly!” I would have captured his pre-reflective and reflective response. It is arguable that the boy did not have time to reflect on the experience to objectify it until after his screech quieted or the frog was captured in his hands. Then later, any amount of time later, I could replay the video for him to see or ask him to reflect on his experience. He may share that he felt afraid until he saw it was frog. He may share that the frog was cold or slimy. He may share that the frog wanted him to pick him up. The possibilities are endless because we are uncertain of children’s reflections until we try to understand. Trying to capture the essence of the

“now” in phenomenology “is so problematic and wrought with issues” because “in a paradoxical sense we may even wonder if there ever was this ‘now’ that we are trying to capture” (van Manen, 2014, p. 59). With these considerations in mind, I am trying to get

closer to young children’s pre-reflective experiences in the moment, realizing that the essence of children’s meaning making may not occur until I invite them later into the reflective experience.

In this study, video recording pre-reflective experiences led me to understand that often a reflective experience occurred immediately after the shock factor had ended.

While capturing pre-reflective experiences I was hopeful that reflective responses would follow but the challenge of capturing the now and meditated now is that experiences encompassing a shock factor are usually spontaneous and unpredictable. This spontaneity can be challenging to capture, especially if videoing is intermittent. One way Tess and I addressed the challenge of spontaneity was to begin video recording any time we felt children may experience an aspect of nature for the first time. Through my own reflections early in the study, I discovered that children were more likely to share their pre-reflective experiences when encountering something new which led Tess and I to observe and wait for children’s new encounters.

Analysis of Data

A double hermeneutic interpretation (Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2009) was used to analyze preschooler’s social constructions (meanings) of nature. Smith, Flowers, and

Larkin (2009) explicitly described six steps to data analysis and uncovered how they might be helpful but are not meant to be prescriptive:

Data Analysis Step Process

1. Reading and re-reading Read and re-read to eliminate feeling overwhelmed connection possibilities. 2. Initial noting Write exploratory notes to comprehend data without rules and pinpoint a phenomenological focus.

3. Develop emerging themes From comprehension comments, participant guides understanding but researcher interpretation is interweaved. 4. Find connections across Charts or maps are used to consider how themes might themes fit together. Some emerging themes may be discarded.

5. Moving to the next case Researcher brackets the ideas from the first case to view the next with new openness. Steps one through four begin again. 6. Look for patterns across These lend to theoretical understanding. cases Figure 5. IPA Steps of Data Analysis. Adapted from Smith, J., Flowers, P. and Larkin, M. (2012). Interpretive phenomenological analysis: theory, method and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Each of these data analysis steps were considered for interpretation. Each Way of

Reflecting, observations as videos and photos, map-making and tours, and children’s words and researcher anecdotes were transcribed to employ these steps. The mosaic pieces were analyzed as cases (Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2009) to create a phenomenological text. Through these steps of interpretation and analysis, each data set or mosaic piece was interpreted to capture the essence of preschooler’s experiences in nature.

Reflexivity in Data Generation: Adjustments and Challenges

After traveling to The Log Playground three weeks in a row, Tess and I noticed a few habits of the children that encouraged us to adjust our weekly routines to benefit the morale of the group. We adjusted the following approaches based on initial observations and conversations:

1. Several children expressed their need to eat lunch and sleep when returning to

school rather than reflecting in conversation, so we voted as a group to reflect

together in nature, at The Log Playground, and children or I could initiate

reflection conversations at any time.

a. If children chose to reflect with the mosaic piece Magic Carpet, they

agreed to view the videos and photos on my hand-held video recorder

while at The Log Playground versus a screen in a classroom back at

school. I agreed to video or hand-write their words and say them back

to them for clarification of meanings.

2. Several children were choosing to draw while in nature, but some would become

upset if the opportunities to draw had passed and walking back to school took a

priority to meet our school schedule.

a. If the children chose to reflect with the mosaic piece Map-making,

they agreed to do this in sketchbooks back at school after we returned.

We adjusted our schedule to make fifteen to twenty minutes available

for the children to draw after our nature experiences.

3. The children from my classroom were naturally more comfortable to invite me

into their experiences, and the children from the other classroom were more

comfortable with Tess. To support these relationships and address this divide for

data generation, we made sure to consciously spend more time with both groups.

To do this, we checked in halfway through the 120-minute timeframe to see if we

felt we had spent extended time with all children to understand their experiences.

This also meant that Tess began videoing on a second video recorder.

With these adjustments, data generation was more challenging but also more abundant. Pre-reflective and reflective experiences of children were always spontaneous.

This meant that Tess and I were always videoing while trying to experience nature with children. Considering the adjustments, I decided that Tess’s videos would join the data collection set but that we would not intentionally reflect on our own experiences with one another so that I could focus on my own phenomenological understanding without influence.

Ethical Considerations

There were several ethical considerations to address within this study. First and foremost, ethical listening was key to hearing and acting on children’s desires, needs, power, and purpose. Empowering children as co-researchers allowed me to be transparent about my intentions in capturing our experiences of nature and how they would inform the writing of chapter four in my giant book called a dissertation.

Second, I was required to comply with approved research procedures and stipulations for consent from the participants by the university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB), as well as the expectations of administrators and policies of the school. All members of the classroom, including parent(s) and guardian(s) of the children not participating in the study, were informed of the IRB approved research project that took place in the classroom. There was a short meeting offered to parent(s) and guardian(s) to address any questions or concerns of the study.

Outside of normal ethical procedures, two additional ethical practices were considered including putting my research agenda aside and building strong rapport with

all participants. It was my intention that research with children would not feel any different than their typical school day, that I was viewed as an equal researcher of the work, and that their ideas and guidance in the research were just as valuable as mine.

Methods of ethical listening and epoché-reduction were addressed in previous sections but Farrell (2005) reminds us that children are “competent persons who are capable of taking creditable roles in research” (p. 169). While I had a goal of understanding how young children experienced nature, I understood that “in research terms, this meant being relaxed about the focus of the study and not worrying if children lead the study into unplanned areas” (Clark, 2008, p. 25-26).

Building a strong rapport with all participants was key to ensuring children felt empowered to make decisions and lead inquiries in the Log Playground. Because I was the regular classroom teacher for only half of the participants, I worked diligently to build more equal relationships with the additional participants. This meant spending time in their classroom outside of our planned research agenda and getting to know them on the playground, noticing how they responded to being out of the classroom before going farther from school. Rather than seeing me as “the teacher down the hall” or a visitor, I hoped that the children viewed me as another participant encountering nature alongside them. I adamantly ensured that all the participants realized that I would care for them and listen to them regardless of their participation in the research or membership in my classroom. Also, I practiced obtaining ongoing assent with the participants, throughout the study, with their understanding that if they said “no” at any time, I would still care for them, meeting their everyday needs, and would only ask them again by their request. In

my opinion, the participant relationships were not used as leverage. While I initiated the research study, I felt that my relationships with the participants made our agreement to study nature together transparent. In my experience, it is important to become a part of the community while being open and transparent about the actions and expectations of participation in children’s learning.

Our understandings of research with children, as discussed in previous chapters, stem from our previous knowledge of children and childhood (James & Prout, 1997;

Taylor, 2013) where, historically, children were seen as less capable than adults.

Ethically listening to children means breaking away from this notion of the inadequate child and power issues in early childhood education, where we can make decisions with them, instead of for them, opening exciting avenues for how research can be conducted with young children (Clark et al., 2003; Rinaldi, 2006). As each moment becomes an experience that we can attach a phenomenological reflection to (van Manen, 2014); why would we not invite young children into this experience, the phenomena of nature?

Chapter IV, Our Five Phenomena of Nature, invites the reader to consider how a group of preschoolers led an exploration of nature as a phenomenon.

The goal of Chapter IV: Our Five Phenomena of Nature was to capture the pre- reflective and reflective experiences of children and nature and children’s constructions of be(in)nature. Chapter IV will introduce the reader to The Log Playground, challenge the reader to navigate children’s everyday needs and experiences of nature, invite the reader to embrace nature differently, and entice the reader to be(in)nature with young children. With a data collection of 2400 minutes of video, 110 minutes of audio

recording, 120 pages of handwritten notes, 56 drawings as reflections, and 88 photographs, careful considerations were made to successfully write a phenomenological text. The criteria for selecting which experiences to elucidate were as followed:

1. Videos that recorded continuously for more than five minutes. This meant that

Tess or I could record experiences continuously without stopping for everyday

needs (minor injuries or requests for Band Aids, shoe tying, or bathroom breaks).

2. Videos that captured pre-reflective and reflective experiences in The Log

Playground. Pre-reflective responses were captured and then reflective responses

occurred right after or before we headed back to school.

3. Audio recordings of children’s verbal reflections after reviewing video of

choice.

4. Children’s drawings that captured reflective thinking based on a pre-reflective

experience they had in The Log Playground.

From these criteria, I chose handwritten notes supporting the epoché-reduction and photographs that added “punctum” (van Manen, 2014, p. 250-252). Using these criteria,

14 anecdotes were written including 12 drawings as reflections and 33 photographs for punctum. Derived from the 14 anecdotes were Our Five Phenomena of Nature.

Writing and Reading a Phenomenological Text

As referenced in previous chapters, van Manen (2014) meticulously described the complexity of writing a phenomenological text and the challenges of writing about the living now while knowing philosophically, it is already too late (see page 43-44). Further he advised:

The problem of writing is that one must bring into presence a phenomenon that

cannot be represented in plain words—it would escape all representation. So, we

may distinguish between the presentative (immediate) and the representative

(mediated) modes. The presentative mode is immediate or direct— the

representative mode is mediate or indirect. The writer who aims to bring the

object of his or her gaze into presence is always involved in a tensional relation

between presentation (immediate “seeing” and understanding) and representation

(understanding mediated by words) (p. 370).

More explanation about writing a phenomenological text is strategically positioned, here, at the end of this chapter to remind the reader of the challenges of writing and the responsibility to read a lengthy portrayal of children and teachers coming to know nature.

It was my intention to evoke wonder. Van Manen (2014) asserts that,

“Phenomenological writing not only finds its starting point in wonder, it must also induce wonder. For a phenomenological text to “lead” the way to human understanding, it must lead the reader to wonder. The text must induce a questioning wonder” (p. 360). So, ask yourself, what about nature drives us to wonder? What kind of experience draws us to silence? What kind of experience leaves us speechless? Having the dual role of teacher and researcher is no easy feat. Our teacher brain tells us to capture everything, a running record, an anecdote, “our proof” that children are learning. Our proof we are doing our job to state mandates, administration and parents. Our researcher brain asks, what about this experience is important? How much do we capture until we know enough about the

phenomena? When will we know? Consider the following message from van Manen

(2007):

Perhaps a phenomenological text is ultimately successful only to the extent that

we, its readers, feel addressed by it — in the totality or unity of our being. The

text must reverberate with our ordinary experience of life as well as with our

sense of life's meaning. This does not necessarily mean that one must feel

entertained by a phenomenological text or that it has to be an “easy read.”

Sometimes reading a phenomenological study is a truly laborious effort. And yet,

if we are willing to make the effort then we may be able to say that the text speaks

to us not unlike the way in which a work of art may speak to us even when it

requires attentive interpretive effort (p. 26).

Children are often experiencing the ordinary life that van Manen (2007) referred to in

Phenomenology of Practice. We know this because children grasp the newness of life until they become lived experiences. Life is ordinary until we give it meaning.

The Challenges of Writing up: Our Five Phenomena of Nature

Writing each of the five phenomena in Chapter IV led to the writing and rewriting of each phenomenon with no less than three rounds. Round one included writing the video transcriptions word for word, then writing my interpretations of the children’s experiences before interweaving my own experiences and reflections. Round one lasted the longest as I strived to write an honest portrayal of experience without losing the essence of the children’s meaning-making but composed our co-constructed meanings for the reader. Round two included reading and re-reading to eliminate or

condense any of the children’s everyday experiences that were distractions instead of connections to new inquiry. Moments eliminated consisted of a child needing a bathroom break or that was in a less than stellar mood. Moments condensed were experiences of the boys expanding Ninja Turtle fighting sounds and moves for more than ten minutes. Finally, round three included choosing images and drawings as reflective responses to include for punctum without losing the richness and clarity of the story (van

Manen, 2014, p. 252). Each round led to a deeper understanding of how I was trying to make sense of children making sense of nature or what Smith, Flowers and Larkin (2009) would call the double hermeneutic method.

Chapter IV

Our Five Phenomena of Nature

Nadia looked up towards the vibrant green tree canopy that was covering our view of the sky and said, “It’s awesome. Very awesome.” I followed Nadia’s gaze and looked up and asked, What’s awesome about it? Nadia took a deep breath in and as she exhaled she bent forward and said, “The trees are hiding us.”

-Nadia’s reflective response to The Log Playground

Nadia’s account of the trees is a reflective response to a moment in time during the year Tess and I (Mrs. P) took twelve preschoolers to The Log Playground. I invite you to embark on this phenomenological journey as Nadia’s story continues and the pre- reflective and reflective experiences of young children are revealed for a phenomenological understanding of what it means to ‘be(in)nature.’ ‘Be(in)nature’ is recognized in this research as the way in which children and teachers came to know nature together through experiences of a natural environment known as The Log

Playground. Nature as a phenomenon is explored in this text based on the premise that children can recognize that nature is both a place to visit and/or children can be nature themselves. Adults have argued how children are nature or come from nature (Taylor,

2011, 2013) but this chapter focuses on how children articulate this idea for themselves.

In this chapter, five phenomena are illustrated as a collection of children’s experiences with their teachers to uncover what it means to phenomenologically understand young children’s responses and reflections of nature. Each phenomenon offers an honest attempt to capture the complexities of children’s perceptions of everyday encounters with

nature and how they inform us, that all living things, regardless of species, need compassion and understanding. The phenomenological writing of anecdotes and selective photographs of punctum allow for enticing data reading and suggests that the reader challenge themselves to experience the work beyond a quick read. Anecdotes were written to capture lived experience accounts of children with(in) nature that generated from observations and careful questioning. Punctum is meant to grab the reader’s attention, compel them to wonder and question (van Manen, 2014). Photographs are positioned close to anecdotes because snapshots encourage reader punctum but the same snapshots encouraged children to create meanings of nature and may encourage the same for readers.

During this study, I had a dual responsibility as a teacher and researcher to navigate the intricacies of everyday needs of children and teachers that would disrupt any seamless data collection possibilities. While a tiny toad was right before us, someone tripped over their shoelace and needed my care. While an intriguing conversation about nature arose, our real-life schedule needed us back at school. The reality of everyday life for this research meant data collection encompassed it all: the moments about nature, its phenomena and the moments about something else. Working with this dual responsibility complicated how data was collected and what reflective nature experiences were realized but allowed an honest phenomenological understanding of children’s experiences of nature while shedding light on possibilities for early childhood educators and researchers. Phenomenon I, Nature Hides Us from Evil, introduces the complexities of data collection while positioning how epoché-reduction method was blended into

anecdotes of children’s experiences, making them our experiences of nature. Next,

Phenomenon II, Nature is Unpredictable and Surprising, suggests how the living now and mediated now of phenomenological experiences can be realized in the moment as well as through reflective invitations post experience (van Manen, 2014). Next,

Phenomenon III, Nature can be Dead and Alive, suggests the complexity of doing phenomenology with children and the constructivist way of knowledge acquisition.

Additionally, Phenomenon IV, Nature Likes Children, considers how children grapple with big ideas until they relate and connect them to things they know, such as life and death and family and biological needs. Lastly Phenomenon V, We’re All Nature, concludes Chapter IV with the notion that children can be(in)nature, understanding that nature is a space outside their classroom but also, they are nature themselves.

Introduction to The Log Playground

The children named the forest The Log Playground because of one special tree.

This eighty-foot fallen tree with busted branches and rotted holes along its trunk afforded children spaces to climb, swing, crawl, slide and jump like the playground at school. One three-foot spiked branch curved up from the trunk in a hook shape so that children could shimmy up and hang from; eventually named The Monkey Bar. The wider part of the tree was higher from the ground but dipped perfectly for children to slide down; The

Slide. The length of the tree challenged the children to balance and make it from end to end without touching the ground beneath. Children often sat on the trunk with legs at the sides creating imaginative scenarios of riding horses and dinosaurs or boarding a train

and firetruck. When children announced that they wanted to go to The Log Playground, they usually had this tree in mind.

Entrance to The Log Playground

The Log Playground Tree

The Log Playground Tree – The Monkey Bar

The Log Playground Tree– The Slide

The Log Playground Tree –The Balance Beam

The Log Playground Tree – The Climber Seat

The Log Playground Tree -The Broken Stump

The parallels of The Log Playground tree and our playground climber back at school were obvious as the children named the parts of the tree with labels they were familiar with, “playground,” “monkey bar,” “slide” and “climber seat.” I assumed the name “balance beam” came from Fitz’ gymnastics class or Lillian’s ballet class.

However, the entrance to The Log Playground and the broken stump were unfamiliar.

Later in Nature Hides Us from Good and Evil, you will read how entering the forest was like entering a library. The dramatic change in space quieted us and allowed us to hear nature. Additionally, the broken stump was just that, the stump of our favorite fallen tree, but to fully understand its importance; you must read on.

The Co-researchers

Carmen. Carmen was an almost five-year-old with a passion for nature. She loved all things she could take care of and would try any new experience. She embraced life. She wanted to experience everything. She noticed details other people missed, such as a pink leaf on the edge of the walking path or a small nut peeking out of the soil. She called herself open-minded and I agreed. She taught others to feel her compassion for living things and her presence made us all feel better.

Fitz. Fitz also turned five a couple months into our journey. His excitement for movement caught everyone’s attention. He was always dancing and wiggling. You’ll never experience such joy & excitement for worm poop as you will in his reflection to come. He wanted his friends to feel the same excitement he did about worms and leaf piles. His high-pitched squeal told you he loved nature. He lived for unpredictability and anticipation. He was perceptive of other’s feelings and non-verbal communication

because he, too, was sensitive and knew to watch out for Midas and his Michelangelo nun chuck fighting moves.

Luis. Luis was already five. He was often quiet but had a bank of knowledge about gardening and his family’s nature experiences. He only shared his thinking at optimal times but you could tell he was always thinking about something. He followed the lead of the other ninja turtle players and had physical strength to climb any tree and lift any branch or log. Luis reminded me of a cuddly teddy bear that you wanted around all the time. He would help anyone who needed him and often preferred to be with adults.

Nadia. Nadia was a four-year-old ready for a storytelling adventure. You’ll recognize her in these stories as an Evil Sea Witch. She’s funny and charming and shares her love through hugs and laughter. She challenges others to take risks although not usually a risk-taker herself. Her reflections were often captured through drawings and she always talked about how she would marry Yoshi, another co-researcher, one day.

She envisioned animals living the life she’d like to, eating candy and nachos all the time.

Zeke. Zeke was also four and always moving. He was his best “self” outdoors where he could run and jump and climb at his own pace, on his own time. He had big ideas and had to get them out immediately. He worked on listening to others to gain their friendship and was excited about the largeness of nature: seeing a big pond, cracking a big stick, catching a ginormous worm. Zeke knew what he wanted to do and he helped us see how nature absorbs energy.

Rosie. Rosie was a mature four-year-old. She had three older siblings and knew a lot about life. She had great fashion sense in her older sister’s clothes and could not wait to get her hands on anything she could call a pet. She lived to make homes for animals, furnished with beds and kitchens. Paired with Carmen, she cared for the animals with such empathy. She knew when animals were scared and needed space and was often a voice for nature.

Midas. Midas was almost five and full of energy. Tess and I encouraged him to use his power for good as he encouraged others to push limits and challenge perspectives.

He would do and say the opposite of what his classmates wanted just to get a reaction.

At the same time, he was loving and felt sympathy for others. He often asked for hugs and I always complied. Over time, he grew to love nature and suggested we save any animals from harm. He worried about death and what it meant for all living things.

Nikki. Nikki was a four-year-old always telling people how it is. She was honest and kept the group in line and made sure if it was time to head back to school that everyone was aware and doing as told. She liked to play pretend if she could be in charge. She was always painting others’ nails and doing their hair. She often steered clear of being a princess, but a mom? Now that is someone she could be. She liked to say, “Kids get to the car! We’re gonna be late!” Her braids were always perfect and she walked carefully in the forest to not smudge her pink sparkle shoes.

Yoshi. Yoshi was also four and sometimes yelled in German to teachers when he was angry but especially if his work was interrupted. He liked to work on his own but knew who his friends were and allowed them to join. He often led the tree breaking

scenarios which offered two things, real work and possible discoveries. Yoshi was always on a mission to do something and complete it. When introduced to the Log

Playground Tree, he was well on his way to turning the remaining tree trunk to sawdust.

Milly. Milly was newly four and very outgoing. However, she needed Nikki and

Nadia close by to feel comfortable with(in) nature. Milly was cautious of risk and knew when warn others of danger. She was a caretaker of plants and animals and would often become a princess who took on the task of feeding the worms or hiding the Roly Polys from birds. She repeatedly talked about the importance of her job and often delayed the group from heading back to school.

Lee. Lee was the oldest after Luis. He reminded me of an old soul that was wise beyond his years and would use facts to stall any nonsense. He danced around the idea of imaginary play and even though he would play along with the ninja turtles, he would snap them back to reality with, “turtles can’t actually eat pizza, they’d die.” Lee was fascinated by dinosaurs and challenged others to pronounce them correctly. He helped the group know biology and nature facts.

Lillian. Lillian, also four, loved animals especially dogs. She had a small dog at home, Jiminy, and compared how all living things remind her of him. She was shy but strong from gymnastics class and could climb most trees with ease. She looked up to

Carmen and would follow her lead in play. Her school attendance was sporadic but when we were together, we looked forward to her laughter and spunk.

100

Our Journey to The Log Playground

Tess said clearly, “Find a partner!” and the children scrambled to join hands with their classmate of choice. They headed through the heavy metal doors as the sound of children’s conversations broke the steady noise of cars and Parta buses driving by. Fitz and Midas giggled while spluttering out, “Triple, nipple, dripple, tipple.” They repeated it four times before Fitz broke the pattern and stated, “Triple means three.” Rosie appeared tired from the morning and whined, “I want my mom-om. I’m not going to have fun in

The Log Playground.” To comfort her, I wrapped my arm around Rosie and promised she would have a good time.

It was sunny and 66 degrees that day and I was sweating from the excitement of the first journey in nature that school year. The children were wearing a variety of clothing, from shorts and a tee shirt to long pants and long-sleeved shirts or a hooded jacket. The children were still holding the hands of their partners and Lee said, “Watch out for that tree!” as Carmen and Lillian bumped their interlocked hands right into the trunk of an Oak tree. They giggled and stepped around it. As they approached the asphalt paved trail they shouted, “The frog pond!” and took off running still hand in hand. The rest of the children followed and Tess caught up and warned, “If we approach quietly we might see frogs.” Zeke and Nikki shouted,

“I see one! I see one!”

“There’s four,” remarked Lee.

“No. Two!” shouted Nadia.

“I always see frogs at the frog pond,” Yoshi proclaimed.

101

After a few minutes Tess said to me, “I just counted thirteen.”

I replied, “I see six really well.”

“There’s probably more because the sun’s out. Duh!” Lee said, jokingly.

“Or some are hiding ‘cuz we’re loud,” argued Zeke.

Nadia said, “Mrs. Tess…” to me and I smiled and said, “I’m Mrs. P” and she corrected and said, “Mrs. P, the bugs are going to eat…the frogs eat the bugs. “I replied, “You’re right. The frogs probably eat the bugs on the water.”

Right then, Yoshi noticed my video recorder and said, “You have that? I see it. I see people in it. What is it?” I shared, “This is my video recorder. It helps me capture stories of you in the meadow.” Yoshi asked, “Why do you want to do that?” I replied, “I want to show other teachers how you talk and think about nature and the things we do here.” Yoshi bent down and picked up a brown crinkled leaf and announced, “We find leaves here. We step on them and they make noise and more noise if we run.” Then he walked behind me to see if he could see himself in the live recording. I asked, “Do you want to see it with you in it?” He leaned against the fence and said, “Uh-huh.” I reviewed the playback for him and then Nadia, Milly, Lee and Lillian joined to watch. As the playback finished I repeated how I wanted to share with other teachers what happens in nature but mostly what children think about nature. Milly said, “Okay, P.” The others were ready to continue to the Log Playground and started walking so we followed.

102

The Frog Pond was the children’s indirect experience of nature (Kellert, 2002) occurring every week. We stopped, pointed and counted each time. Since this group of children were four or five years old, it was likely they had visited The Frog Pond prior to this year. It was important to them to see if they saw more than the week before but also argue why the number each time. Yoshi often dismissed the whole experience saying, “I always see frogs here.” This day, the new piece of technology was a huge distraction but it allowed me to get verbal assent naturally. Like in a zoo exhibit, the frogs were behind the fence and lacking the hands-on feel of the frogs and the water which meant the children moved on quickly to The Log Playground to get a “real” experience.

Nadia’s confusion of my name told me I had some work to do to get to know the co-researchers that were not members of my own classroom. I thought it would be easy to get to know Nadia because she had already given me a hug. Zeke had made laps

103

circling from the front of the group by Tess back to me and the rest of the children eight times. He really needed to move. I wondered if he would be able to stay calm if we discovered animals. Nikki walked carefully paying close attention to her new shoes. She looked uncomfortable outdoors. I wondered if this would change over time. I could already sense Yoshi’s matter-of-fact state of mind which reminded me of myself when I was younger. I wondered if he had an imaginative side and if he would become friends with Lee who also enjoyed facts. Milly stayed quiet and close to Nikki. I was excited to get to know her because her mom told me she loved being in her back yard. Rosie showed her uncertainty of the blended group right from the start by stating how she would not have fun. This was an unusual remark for her. Different strategies to build a sense of community with this group of twelve children raced through my mind. Perhaps the reflection invitations would bring us together.

Phenomenon I: Nature Hides us from Evil

We headed up a steep beaten path into the Log Playground. As we entered, our surroundings got darker and the children suddenly grew quiet. You could hear birds and crickets and the crumpling of leaves under our feet. Once we were about fifteen yards into The Log Playground, you could no longer see any man-made pavement or buildings from any angle. Sunbeams forced pathways through the tops of the trees, leaving scattered light amongst the forest. Rosie was the first to enter the forest but circled back around to the group and asked, “Where’s the playground?” I asked, “Lee, do you know?”

Lee remarked, “Yep. I’ll show you.” He walked quicker and Rosie followed him but then he suddenly stopped causing Rosie to bump into his back. He looked around. Then

104

he turned to the right and said, “Oh yeah, It’s over here.” The entire group followed them and Nikki announced while stretching her legs over a log, “There’s lots of pokey things.”

Then she bent down and picked up a branch with newer leaves and said, “Look, I got a stick today!” appearing proud of this accomplishment. Lee and Rosie had been to The

Log Playground before and were looking for the familiar tree, The Log Playground Tree.

Right then, I wrote in my journal these questions: How special is this dead tree to the children? To these children? Why is it special? Is it special to me?

The Trees are Hiding us

The group of children were climbing amongst the logs of the giant tree and Milly remarked, “You’ve got to balance on here!” She had her arms stretched out wide to her sides for balancing help as she walked the log. Nikki replied matter-of-factly, “I can balance on here just fine.” Rosie agreed with Milly’s cautious approach and said,

“You’ve got to be careful” as she swung from a short broken off branch landing on a cracked twig. Nikki climbed the higher part of the log and confirmed, “Be careful of this tree. It’s very scratchy.” I smiled as Nadia came to stand near me. She leaned into my leg as she looked up towards the tree canopy that was covering our view of the sky and quietly said, “It’s awesome. Very awesome.” I followed Nadia’s gaze and looked up and asked, What’s awesome about it? Nadia took a deep breath in and as she exhaled she bent forward and said, “The trees are hiding us.” I just stood stunned in silence by her remark.

105

This is Phenomenology I thought. Van Manen (2007) suggests, “Phenomenology is a project that is driven by fascination: being swept up in a spell of wonder, a fascination with meaning (p. 11). Thinking about how the trees were hiding us that day I was swept up in wonder. I wondered what they were hiding us from. Who they were hiding us from. Van Manen (2014) reminds us that every moment is an experience and each experience can be recognized in the living now and meditated now. To reiterate he states, “the moment becomes objectified—it turns from the subjectivity of living presence into an object of reflective presence” (p. 34). Nadia described the trees hiding us as

“awesome” and described her experience in both the living now and meditated now. The living now of how awesome the experience was to her and the meditated now that the trees were in fact hiding us. Nadia’s words stunned me. What were they hiding us from?

Was it from everything outside the forest? Were they hiding us from evil? From things,

106

not nature? From the structured day back at school? I got lost in my own thoughts which blurred me from inquiring more. As adults, we tend to analyze children’s ideas while connecting them to our own. When we entered The Log Playground, the children grew quiet. The same feel when walking into a library. The environment changed so drastically, it quieted us. It hid us. I noticed the children grew quiet, but did they notice?

Was it because they felt hidden like Nadia? Moments passed and as children grew comfortable with the space, the quietness eased and play began.

Milly climbed on The Balance Beam and said to Nadia, “I’m going to be the

Good Princess and this tree is my castle.” Nadia bent underneath the tree and shouted,

“And I am the Evil Sea Witch under the sea that is going to eat you and your dogs!”

Milly crouched in disgust and said bluntly, “Actually my dogs are at the hair-cutting place.” She climbed higher than Nikki and said, “Do you want to be a good princess too?” Nikki said, “Yeah” and tried to climb up by Milly. Nadia jumped in front of Nikki, stopping her climb, and growled, “I’m the Evil Sea Witch and I eat princesses.” Nikki whined, “Noooo. I don’t want to play with a witch” as her boots continued to slip from the log. Tess acknowledged the whine and said, “What’s going on here?” Nikki repeated herself and Tess said, “Well, you don’t have to. Tell her you’d prefer not to.” Nikki said it again but added, “You can just be good with us.” Nadia smiled, “But I am the Evil Sea

Witch and I am going to get you.” Nikki whined louder than before and ran away from

Nadia. Milly followed Nikki to a patch in the distance.

Nadia as an Evil Sea Witch

Milly’s drawing as reflective response: I’m in the castle and Nadia is the Sea Witch 107 under me. We’re having a party in the castle and she isn’t coming.

Nadia as an Evil Sea Witch

108

The castle or The Balance Beam of the Log Playground Tree became an opportunity for risky-play (Little & Eager, 2010) or a context for challenging their climbing skills and afforded them to take safe risks while being supported by teachers.

While Nadia as the Evil Sea Witch caused a social conflict, the girls continued to experience nature by approaching the risky terrain of a giant log two feet above ground with uneven bumps, holes and bark while being challenging by the limitations of their stiff rain boots. Milly was above the log and Nadia was below and Milly’s clever comment of her dogs being at the groomer gave her the upper hand. Nikki wanted to play but not being able to climb up higher on the log away from the Evil Sea Witch caused her to feel defeated and leave. Nature could not hide her at that point.

Nadia was an Evil Sea Witch determined to eat princesses. From my childhood and probably Nadia’s, The Little Mermaid (1989, 2006) comes to mind. Was she trying to reenact The Little Mermaid? Milly set the plot right away when she climbed on The

Balance Beam of the log; being a Good Princess in a castle. The height of the log lent itself for their above water/underwater scene. Milly cleverly helped her dogs escape by putting them at the Groomer. However, Nikki could not climb out of the water and had to flee the play. As a phenomenologist in this moment, I cared more about how nature was influencing their experiences than to clarify if it was The Little Mermaid they were playing. The log was hard to climb on but became a prop for their dramatic play.

One Big Daddy Long Leg

Just moments later Midas ran over to show me a toad that he struggled to keep in his hands. It jumped to the ground and he scooped him right back up again. It was a

109

young Eastern American toad. They are known for being the most widespread anuran species in Ohio so I expected to see lots more that year.

Rosie whined, “He won’t let me hold him!”

Luis from another direction and asked, “Can we go down by the water, now?”

Midas shouted, “Yeah, let’s throw him in the water!”

“Nooo! He might die! Let me hold him!” Rosie shouted.

I nodded, but Nadia interjected, “He will die!” before I could suggest giving

Rosie a turn. Lee sighed, “If it’s a toad they’ll die but that’s a frog, so he won’t

die.”

I ask, “Why Lee?”

“Because toads like a little water, but frogs like a lot!”

This excited Midas even more to get that toad to the water and we took off quickly towards a large pond. Nadia screamed, “Don’t put him in the water!” I then say as I run to catch up so Midas can hear me, “I don’t think Midas wants to hurt the toad.”

Rosie gets a hold of the toad.

Nadia says again with less force, “Don’t put him in the water.”

Feeling anxious I say, “What if we let him go on the log and see where he hops.”

Midas takes the toad from Rosie’s hands and places him on the log. The toad immediately jumps towards the water. Rosie walks closer and screams piercingly loud,

“AHHHH! Spider!” and jumps backwards,

Midas calmly announces, “That spider’s gonna get him.”

110

He looks closer, “Whoa. That’s one big daddy long leg! That spider’s gonna get

him!” Lee argues in a proud tone, “That’s actually 4 daddy long legs all

together.”

The four daddy long legs were from the Harvestman species. Daddy Long Legs obviously get their nickname from their legs but are found in every country but

Antarctica. Daddy Longs Legs often group together to appear hazardous to other animals.

Rosie then proclaims, “Spiders can be slow and toads can be faster.”

“Hurry toad, I don’t want that giant spider to get you” remarks Midas.

“No Midas! Spiders are slow, toads are fast.”

He sighs, “Get away, Spidey!”

Carmen joins us while Rosie and says, “I can’t see the toad!”

Lee nods, “I’ll show you. He’s pretty hard to see.”

Rosie repeats, “I can’t find him. Even my eyes got all camouflaged!”

Lee continues to look, “There’s the daddy long leg but…”

“Little froggy! Come out, come out wherever you are!” Midas jokes.

Rosie says again, “If he gets all camouflaged you can’t see him!”

Midas jokes again, “Maybe he ate the frog.”

Lee grunts, “No, no. His belly’s too small.”

111

Rosie holding an American Toad

Viewing the toad through camouflaged eyes

112

Phenomenology can be rewarding. “The reward phenomenology offers is seeing- meaning or ‘in-seeing’ of experience” (van Manen, 2007, p.12). Midas’ impulsive tendencies encouraged the group to be cautious of his interactions with the toad and with nature. When Midas mentioned throwing the toad in water it was clear the others were picturing harm. I was too. When Lee used the word ‘die,’ it also seemed to trigger some of the children’s empathetic protective responses. The daddy-long-legs surprised the group and Rosie and Midas’ pre-reflective experiences were captured as screams,

“AHH!” and “Whoa!” and Rosie’s physical jump back. Then after some time, they both reflected on their experience with, “Spiders are slow, toads are fast” and, “That spider’s gonna get him.” Phenomenology recognizes that when we write about pre-reflective experiences, they are transcended to the past but Rosie and Midas moved their experience into reflection as they covered their fear with reflective comments. Rosie used her knowledge about toads and spiders to determine the outcome while Midas preferred the frog’s fate ending up in the spider’s belly.

Later Rosie added, “Even my eyes got all camouflaged.” She knew that animals hid through camouflage and used it to describe what her eyes saw. At the time, it felt as though the message the children and I were sending to Midas was also camouflaged.

How could I help him understand our desire to protect the toad? During this moment, pre-reflective and reflective experiences are brought to the surface of “in-seeing,” through my narration, because of the unpredictability of the frog’s actions and the discovery of four spiders. Viewing the videos led us to reflect on our feelings of angst together. Reflective conversations led us to be in conditions of ‘seeing-meaning’ The

113

group was anxious for the toad’s safety. As more time passed, the children’s reflections

allowed them to overcome fear of what looked like a giant spider. The anecdote, Rosie’s drawing as reflective response: The toads in my hand before I can’t see him. The heart is to keep him safe. The spiders are going slow because the children’s words and photos led to understand that while nature hid us from evil, nature sun is making them tired. hid nature from us.

Whether the toad jumped towards the water determined the animal’s species, frog or toad, despite me calling it a toad more than once. When the children discovered the

Daddy-Long-Legs, they lost sight of the toad and the toad escaped. Nature hid the toad from evil. In this moment, nature hid the toad from us. The four Daddy-Long Legs were bunched together creating what looked like a giant spider. It shocked the children. They felt fear and moved away. Nature hid nature from evil. Over time, children used what they knew about spiders to overcome their fears, “Spiders are slow, toads can be faster.”

Rosie’s eyes became camouflaged. She continued to look but Lee confirmed, “They’re pretty hard to see.” Both comments were children’s reflective responses to nature. When

114

children are given enough time to process their ideas in a setting with others, they can reflect on their experiences of interactions with (in) nature, conversations and meaning- making. In the meantime, the tree canopy was hiding us all. It was easy to assume that

Nadia meant the trees were hiding us all from evil and nature was hiding the toad from us.

The Earth is Right Here

Lee, Midas and Carmen began to walk down by the water so I followed. Lee climbed to lounge on a tree and Midas, Carmen stood nearby.

I asked, “Do you want to talk about what nature is while we wait to see another

animal?”

Carmen asks, “Do you mean nature items?”

I nod with my camera recording.

She pauses before saying, “Hmm. Nature can be all on different planets.”

Lee states quickly, “I don’t want to talk about this.”

Midas repeats Carmen’s question, “Nature items?”

Lee interrupts, “Carmen, climb this log.”

So, I ask, “Are logs nature?”

Lee says, “Yep. And leaves.”

Carmen bursts out, “Trees are nature! Leaves are nature! Poison Ivy’s nature!”

Lee adds, “Branches are not.”

“Houses are nature, trucks are nature.” Midas suggests.

Lee says, “No they’re not.”

115

Carmen adds, “Children and people are nature because they live on nature.”

I ask, “Lee, why do you say houses are not nature?”

“Because they don’t walk or something?”

Midas says, “Well, they kind of walk but they don’t.”

Then I say, “So Lee, trees don’t walk but Carmen said they are nature.”

“Yep they are”

So, I say to all of them, “How do you know then when things are nature or not

nature?” Lee confirms, “Because they’re in the wild. Sometimes they move.”

“I’m going to try to wiggle this tree” as he bear hugs the tree and tries to wiggle

it. Agitated Carmen shouts, “I CANNOT get up here” referring to the log.

“Trees move when you cut them open” she adds.

“But that hurts the trees” remarked Lee.

Silence breaks our conversation about nature and Midas announces, “We don’t really care about nature, right guys?” and I say, “Well I really do care about nature a lot” and

Carmen immediately joins in, “Me too. Everybody in the world is nice to nature.” I then ask, “Why do you think?” and Carmen says, “Because Earth likes the nature and it likes its beauty.” Midas then changes his mind from peer pressure and reconsiders, “I do like nature and the earth is right here.” When Midas changed his mind, I knew that together we could help him understand care for nature.

Nature Hides us from Evil

I was following the children to The Log Playground to better understand how we conceptualized nature as a group and to record their pre-reflective and reflective

116

responses. In just one visit to the Log Playground many experiences took place. As a phenomenologist, my goal was to openly focus on children’s understandings, interactions and growing relationships with nature. I use the word openly as one way to describe being with children, getting lost in moments with them, while maintaining a phenomenological attitude and filtering through everyday life moments of children and teachers to answer my research questions. From bumping into one another and shoes coming untied to finding a stick and falling off a tree and then to finding a camouflaged frog and saving him from its death. From missing Mom and needing a tissue to need a teacher’s negotiation help in a social conflict. All of this ‘stuff’ happened and may or may not have led the children to discover the toad and discover nature and talk about it.

The drawings positioned in this section are Rosie and Milly’s reflective experiences as drawings once we returned to school. These are positioned to show how children continue to reflect on their experiences, resting in a state of reflecting and becoming until the next experience takes precedence. Furthermore, both the desire to protect and harm nature become part of coming to know the phenomenon. All twelve children, Tess and myself experienced nature together. In the additional phenomena to follow, I am hopeful a phenomenological understanding will proceed and readers will learn how we came to

‘be (in) nature.’

Phenomenon II: Nature is Unpredictable and Surprising.

Nikki shook her head while holding her hands behind her back, “I’m not touching that thing!” Tess announced that it would be lunch time soon and Nikki reached out and

117

touched a worm in Rosie’s hand with one finger for perhaps half a second and said, “I probably don’t like worms.”

It was a unanimous vote that we would return to The Log Playground. We walked into the forest and Nikki asked, “Where’s the playground?” and no one answered.

She asked again, “Where’s the playground?” Milly remarked, “Maybe it disappeared.

Like a magic wizard or something.” I added, “Ask someone around you. I know they’ll know where it is.” We walked over a pile of logs and Nadia said, “This is it.” Nikki said,

“Pfff. This isn’t it.” They both looked around until they spotted it and began to walk again.

Rosie and Fitz were giggling loudly towards the root end of the Log Playground

Tree so I went over to check it out. When I approached them, Rosie was giggling while reaching for a worm. Several worms were piled in the mud and their skin reflected light from moisture. You could tell Fitz or Rosie had just turned over a log to explore underneath. Under the log was more than twenty Earth Worms.

118

A newly turned log reveals glistening worms

Rosie said, “Ha! I got one!”

Fitz reached, “I want one! Can I Have one? I need one.”

He picked one up he screeched, giggling, “Whoa. Lots of worms!”

Rosie mumbled, then snorted, “A hundred”.

Fitz got one in his hands, giggling louder, “I caught one! I caught one! I caught

one!” “Hey Luis! Come over here! There’s worms! Luis, come over here!

We found some worms!”

Fitz watched a worm move in his hand and reacted to its wiggling with a loud piercing scream and then repeated quieter than before, mumbling in awe, “We found some worms; we found some worms.” Luis joined them and said, “Look at all these!” Rosie repeated,

“A hundred.” Luis picked one up and let out a long giggle. Fitz added, “Luis, I think you

119

have to call Lillian. She loves worms.” Before he had time, Rosie shouted, “Li-lli-an!”

At the same time, Fitz dropped his worm and screamed louder than previously and Luis dropped his and giggled before shaking his hand wildly to get the worm residue off.

Rosie’s handful of worms

I owe it to worms for coming out of the ground because it had rained. Van Manen

(2014) explained, “experience is meaningful in the sense that it is so full of meaning that it cannot be completely fathomed” (p. 4). With best efforts through phenomenological writing, I have tried to place you near the Log Playground Tree experiencing a group of children giggling and screeching about giant earth worms. It cannot be ‘completely fathomed’ without being there. In this ‘you had to be there’ moment, I began to wonder how many experiences we encountered in just two hours of outdoor exploration time in the meadow. This is the question I pondered as I walked to the Log Playground with the children for the second time. How many experiences will we have today? 2 hours. 120

120

minutes. Even If I considered each experience of the twelve children for every minute.

That would be 1, 440 experiences that I could potentially observe, capture, seek to understand and ask the children about in two hours. How does a phenomenologist try to capture SOME of them? How does a phenomenologist choose which experiences to expand on? Then I realized the children were pulling me into their experiences, the ones that they needed me to be a part of, needed me to know, by saying things like “P, you come!” and “Mrs. P, do you like worms?”

Worm Poop

It felt as though reflective experiences were everywhere and I was moving my videorecorder in every direction.

Nikki walked up and announced, “I’m here guys!”

Fitz and Rosie shouted back, “We found worms! We found worms!”

Luis dropped his, “Ew-eww! It’s too slimy. I can’t do it!”

Milly asked, “You found worms?”

Nikki asked next, “You see worms?”

Rosie said, “Yeah!”

She placed a worm in Milly’s hand before she could refuse. Milly squealed and dropped it. She put her hand out again and Rosie asked,

“You want to hold one?”

It fell to the ground.

“Oops. They’re a little slippery. I’ll get you one. They’re a little shy,” said

Rosie.

121

Fitz added, “They’re so very cute” and handed one to me.

It was cold and I tried to look at it while filming. “He’s a little cutie!” he said again while Luis rolled over another log. Luis discovered more and shouted, “There’s so many! Here’s more, Fitz!” Fitz moved towards Rosie and spotted another one yelling,

“Another cutie! A cutie!” Fitz picked up another worm with a screech and said to Luis,

“Mine’s really wiggly.”

Nikki looked over Milly’s shoulder and Milly pushed her worm in Nikki's face and asked, “Do you like worms?” Nikki jumped back and screamed, “Whoa! No, I don’t! Of course, I don’t!” Milly turned back to Fitz who had worms dangling from his hand like a had a handful of spaghetti. Milly acknowledged them and said, “Aww.

They’re cute. Put them in a safe place.”

“Ahhhh! It poooooped on me! Luis! It pooped on me! It pooped on me!”

yelled Fitz suddenly.

Milly, un-phased by his yelling said, “I put mine in a safe place, sleeping in his

bed.” Milly asked Nikki, “Do you want this one?” Before she could respond,

Fitz said, “Don’t you dare touch that one. It’ll poop on you.”

Hesitant, Nikki asked, “Do they bite you?”

“No, Nikki. They don’t bite. Their mouths are so tiny they can’t.” I confirmed.

Nikki asked Milly, “Can I hold one?”

Milly almost had it between Nikki’s fingers.

Nikki jerked back and said, “Oh No. I can NOT hold that worm. Ahh!”

Milly put one in my hand, Nikki asked, “Do you like it?”

122

“Sure. It’s cold and pretty wiggly”

Nikki asked, “Is it going to bite you?” and I said again,

“No, worms don’t bite you. They just move around in your hand.”

Fitz added, “And poop on you.”

Worm Poop on Fitz’ hand. Luis is watching on.

123

Fitz’ drawing as reflective response: A little baby worm making a trail of poop.

Luis’ drawing as a reflective response: The worms are crawling and crawling on my hand. They really like the dirt.

124

Fitz’ reached and said, “I want one! Can I have one? I need one.” His stream of consciousness was heard as a pre-reflective response to seeing a pile of wiggly worms.

He needed one. His view of those worms wiggling about triggered his brain to need to feel them. Then another reflective response as he caught one saying, “I caught one! I caught one! I caught one!” then some time passed and he screeched again when it wiggled quite a bit before reflecting on the larger experience with, “We found some worms. We found some worms.” Luis showed interest in the worms as Fitz continued to include him, encouraging him to join. His pre-reflective responses were harder to capture because his stream of consciousness was silent or possibly expressed just through giggling. He stayed present in the experiences as mostly an observer and shook his hand to get the worm residue off. He stayed near Fitz but only commented once on the number of worms he saw. Encouraging children to reflect in other ways than speaking, i.e.; The

Mosaic Approach (Clark, 2006) is needed to understand children’s experiences. Without a follow-up opportunity, clarity about Luis’ reflection would be lost.

I Probably Don’t Like Worms

Nikki watched Luis as he stood still and his worm wiggled around. Nikki said,

“Oh no. That’s jiggly.” She walked to Rosie and Fitz with her hand open ready to hold one when Fitz announced, “I want mine to poop on the ground. I’m holding mine this way so it poops on the ground.” Rosie pushed the handfuls of worms towards Nikki and

Nikki jumped back, pushing into Lillian. She whined, “I don’t really like worms. I’m tired.” Fitz said, “Well, you usually like worms but they’ll poop on you. They’ll just poop on you.” Lillian laughed and I said, “Lillian, I would give it a try. There might not

125

be a time again when we find this many worms.” She said, “Okay, P!” and began to collect some.

Nadia and Tess came over to us and Milly handed a worm to Nadia so fast she fell backwards over a fallen log. Nadia stood up and said, “No biting. Those worms won’t bite.” I laughed because I knew she was okay but I asked, “Are you okay, Nadia?

You’re right. Those worms will not bite you.” Nadia picked up a worm and dangled it in front of her. Nikki walked up to her and confirmed, “It’s not biting you?” Nadia replied,

“Nope.”

Nikki said, “I need one,”

Nadia pushed one towards her.

Nikki backed up, “I don’t want to hold that thing!”

Nikki turned to me.

I said, “Nikki, they won’t bite you. They’re slippery and feel different on your

skin but they won’t bite you.”

Rosie walked up to her showing her the piles of worms in her hand

Nikki sighed, “I don’t want it.”

I asked, “Are you sure? You’ve said you might want to hold one but I can tell

you’re still not sure.”

Fitz walked up, “Look if you hold his butt out like this, he can’t poop on you.”

Nikki shook her head, “Nope.”

Tess announced, “It will be lunch time soon, let’s get ready to leave.”

126

Nikki reached out and touched a worm in Rosie’s hand with one finger for half a second and said, “I probably don’t like worms.”

Nikki’s attempt to hold a worm

127

Nikki showed interest in the worms from the initial point of commotion. She screamed “Whoa!” and jumped back as Milly tried to share them with her. On more than occasion she got close enough to touch a worm and asked to hold one. She even at one point said, “I need one” but when given the opportunity she revolted with, “I DON’T want to hold that thing.” In this case, I would suggest that her pre-reflective experiences were mostly in her mind as she closely watched most of her peers wrangle the worms from the ground to their hands and amongst each other. The desire was there to be a part of the “touching” experience but when given the opportunity she just couldn’t. It was clear she had concerns about the worms biting. When time was running out, she quickly touched one as if she HAD to know what it felt like. The unpredictability of experiences with living creatures brings out the children’s pre-reflective and reflective voice.

Nikki’s drawing as reflective response: I’m touching a long worm right here. It’s so wet. I don’t want to touch it so my finger’s just a little bit far from it.

128

Nature is Unpredictable and Surprising.

Capturing the children’s experiences with worms was as meaningful as it was challenging. The squealing, screeching, and giggling were the types of pre-reflective responses I had hoped to capture when writing my research questions, but to me these moments were better. The unpredictability of nature; the wet chill and wiggling of the worms was so surprising to the children that they could not hold back their verbal responses! Then when the worm pooped on Fitz, the experience engrossed him so much that he could not move on from it. Every chance he got he reflected on the experience and continued to remind the children that poop had happened. I felt my video recorder in my hands going in all directions, feeling as though every second was a reflection I could not miss. The children’s reflective drawings reinforce the children’s reflective understanding of what happened: the touching/not touching, the poop and the worms’ movement. This phenomenon was an exploration of nature moving, wiggly pooping worms; but the next phenomenon explores how nature has human characteristics.

Phenomenon III: Nature can be Dead and Alive

Luis said, “Wow guys. Pat Cassandra is all over actually.” Lee asked, “Does Cassandra know ninja turtles?” Luis said, “Yep, she does!” They all sat down in the Pachysandra and continued their Ninja Turtle conversation.

We began this journey by talking about the possibility of seeing worms again at

The Log Playground. Children’s conversations about what would happen on this day told

Tess and I that we no longer needed to ask the children where they wanted to go in the wetlands or walk them through the steps of finding their partners with the detailed safety

129

talk before leaving school. They zipped up their coats, grabbed the hands of their partners and waited for one of us to say, “Let’s go!” When we entered the Log

Playground Midas, Fitz, Lee and Luis ran passed the Log Playground tree but circled around to invite me to follow.

Walking carefully over a Pachysandra terrain

Pat Cassandra

Luis shouted, “Here’s the Pat Cassandra!”

Fitz asked, “Who’s Cassandra?”

“It’s here. It’s everywhere.”

A smile spread across his face, “P, we planted Pat Cassandra around our new

house at home. It has big leaves that grow and grow.”

“I didn’t know it was called that,” and smiled back.

130

“My mom said, ‘It’ll take a while.”

I confirmed, “It definitely wasn’t this tall the last time we were here.”

We walked to the edge of the Pachysandra and Fitz said “Midas, I’m Rafael!”

“I’m Mikey!” replied Midas.

Lee said, “Yeah! We’re playing ninja turtles” as they walked land unvisited yet this year.

Suddenly Lee said, “Guys! Be quiet! I see cheek-munks.”

“They’re actually chipmunks,” laughed Fitz.

“Cheek-munks! Ha ha!” giggled Lee.

Luis added, “Yeah, like your face!”

Midas sputtered, “No like your butt!”

They all laughed and tiptoed towards the chipmunk.

Then Lee said with a sputter, “They’re so…SO hard to see. They’re SO good at hiding.”

Luis asked me, “Why do they hide in the ground?”

“Maybe they go in the hole sewer like Mikey and Rafael,” suggested Midas, before I could answer.

Luis said, “Yeah and eat pizza.”

“No. They’re so tiny and have to hide from predators,” reminded Lee.

Zeke joined us, “Hey guys! Can I play ninja turtles? I’m Donatello.”

“Yeah!” agreed Fitz.

“Wow guys,” announced Luis, “The Pat Cassandra is all over actually.”

131

Lee asked, “Does Cassandra know ninja turtles?”

Luis smiled, “Yep, she does!”

Sitting in the Pachysandra, Midas said, “Guys, let’s make a plan to kill Shredder.”

“I can fight with my hands. I don’t have swinging things,” Fitz added.

Midas said, “I can fight with my hands too!” and raised up his fists.”

Fitz backed up and asked, “Yeah but we’re just pretending, right?”

“Let’s kill shredder in the Pat Cassandra!” suggested Luis.

Midas asked in the same breath, “Who’s Pat? I don’t see Pat. Is Pat your pretend

friend? Do they like Shredder? Oh, is Pat a bad guy?”

“Yeah, he’s a bad guy! Let’s fight him!”

Ninja Turtles in Pat Cassandra

132

Luis’ drawing as reflective response: I’m walking through the Pat Cassandra. TheWe’re boys the immediately ninja turtles used trying fists to to fight punch off thethe air.poison. Zeke shouted fighting sounds, “Hi- yah! Ugh! Cha!” and the boys copied. Then Luis announced, “The Pat Cassandra keeps growing, its poisoning the ground. See how far it goes?” and pointed over his shoulder. Fitz, Midas and Zeke continued to air fight and added some kicks to include the ground. Luis reiterated, “Everything that’s green is poison and the ninja turtles have to be brave and get through it, then fight Shredder.” Fitz nodded and shouted, “Turtles together! Turtles, let’s fight!” At the edge of the green Fitz, Lee, Midas and Zeke all carried long branches as walking sticks. They clapped their branches together and Lee confirmed, “Defeated!”

This anecdote encompasses several images of childhood and constructivist learning. Bruner (1960) reminds us that the process of spiral curriculum encourages children to understand the growth in complexity of a topic with each revisit. Luis opened with, “Here’s the Pat Cassandra!” Since he told me about the planting experience he had

133

with his mom, I knew he was talking about Pachysandra. However, children’s conversations and Ninja Turtle context developed so quickly, I was unable to clarify. He introduced what sounded like the name of a person and the children grappled with trying to figure out whom or what he was talking about while also wanting to engage in a familiar play theme, Ninja Turtles. Ninja Turtles, another experience of Disney pop culture, was something they could easily agree to enact. Immediately roles were assigned and the fighting ensued. At the same time, Lee discovered a chipmunk, calling it a

“cheek-munk,” another play on words. Hearing “cheek” led the boys to think of the cheek of their faces and bottoms causing joy and laughter. As the Ninja Turtle play unfolded, Luis continued to bring up Pat Cassandra which led the boys to inquire about it but not fully understand he was referring to the plant until later when it became the green poison covering the ground. I reflected on how these children had only been experiencing with language for four and something years, it made sense that they were playing with words and learning the nuances of sounds while also knowing that saying

“butt” when you’re four and five is funny. Pachysandra sounds unusual when pronounced and replacing it with a person’s name made it more tangible for children.

Pachysandra is a genius of five species of evergreen perennials that are usually planted as ground cover. It covered the back yard of a home on the edge of The Log Playground forest. The shocking green color of the plant and Luis’ new knowledge of Pachysandra enticed the boys to move beyond The Log Playground Tree and explore a new space.

Even as ninja turtles, Luis’ interest continued to be recognized by the group as they asked questions and entertained his need to talk about it. Although playing ninja turtles was a

134

prominent play theme, nature prevailed in the children’s experiences. Pachysandra became a play space simply because it was different than the surrounding dead leaves.

Pat was also a she that knew Ninja Turtles before becoming a he that was a bad guy and ultimately poison spreading over the ground. With each revisit of attempting to understand Pachysandra, the complexity of their understanding grew. Images of childhood signed through as they incorporated influential pop culture and humor into their play.

The Potato Bug

Passed the Pachysandra, Lee led them to a pile of fallen trees and he swiped his

stick on a log. “Hey, I found something!” He held it in his hand and Midas asked

him,

“Is it a Roly Poly?”

“Nope. It’s longer. A millipede, I think.” replied Lee.

“Millipedes curl when they’re scared and stay like that awhile. Once they like

you, they uncurl,” he continued.

I asked, “Can anyone else find something that’s alive?”

Luis remarked, “Pat Cassandra is alive, see?” and pointed all around.

“Yeah, you are right. It seems to be in full bloom right now.”

Zeke said, “I found a leaf.”

“What about that leaf is alive?” I asked.

He looked close and said, “Well if you look really close you can see the lines

where it used to breathe. It’s dead now.”

135

“Nature can be dead and alive,” announced Luis.

I asked, “How do you know?”

Fitz said, “Well if something used to be alive then it’s nature even if its dead.”

I nodded, “What else can you tell me about that?”

They both sputtered and I said, “Wait a second. Let Fitz finish.”

He said as he grabbed his chest, “When you breathe in, you’re alive. When you stop breathing, you’re dead. Nature breathes and then it’s dead.”

Luis nodded, “Yeah. Leaves breathe in the summer but die in winter. New leaves come.”

“Yep. I knew it,” agreed Lee.

I asked, “Lee, do you want to add anything?”

“Well, I used to think worms never died but then I saw them on the black path and

Midas killed one. More worms were squished too.”

Midas said, “Maybe I killed it on accident, maybe I didn’t.”

Zeke asked, “Did more worms come?”

“When it rains, the worms kind of drown and come out and die or live. When it doesn’t rain, they’re happy in the mud.” Lee said as he uncurled a millipede in his hand.

I asked, “Do you know why those curl up like that?”

“Yeah, ‘cuz it’s scared.”

Zeke held a Roly Poly bug, “Mine is curled.”

I asked, “Is yours scared, too?”

136

“Yep, it’s a Roly Poly.”

Lee said, “Well my grandparents and my mom and dad call that a Potato bug.”

Zeke popped the bug into his mouth and within three seconds spit it out!

He shouted, “Well you can’t eat it like a potato!”

“EWW!” Don’t eat it. They just call it that because it’s an ov-val like a potato,

remarked Lee. Zeke firmly stated, “It’s not a potato bug, it’s a Roly Poly.” At the

same time, Rosie called from a distance, “We found ear worms over here!

Wanna come see?”

Lee sharing his knowledge of Curled Millipedes

137

Helping his millipede uncurl

The tasted Potato Bug

Midas, Lee, Fitz, Zeke and Luis were contemplating the question, what is nature?

First, Lee described how the millipede was fearful of him but would uncurl when it was no longer afraid. Fear of something creepy or evil surfaced again. This time Lee was

138

describing how the millipede would uncurl or come around to accept him like the way the children overcame their fear of the giant Daddy-Long-Leg in Nature Hides Us from Evil.

Again, nature hides nature from evil or in this case, us. The defense mechanism of a millipede is curling to protect itself from predators. When the millipede did not uncurl on its own, Lee helped it. I thought about how nature forces us to accept the unpredictable.

The unpredictability of finding a toad in the forest or a millipede on a log. Lee forced the millipede to “like” him. Carefully asking about other things “alive” led the boys to consider that nature can be dead and alive. Zeke talked about how the lines are how leaves breathe. Fitz’ showed us breathing, letting us understand that if something used to be alive then it is nature. Luis added the transformation of seasons and the coming of new leaves. I assumed that Lee also realized that all nature dies as he described how he used to think worms never died which encouraged us to see again Midas’ desire to fit in with the group but his tendencies to harm nature. Anyone who has ever killed an insect, perhaps in their home, understands Midas’ desire. This anecdote reminds us that to phenomenologically understand, we must include moments about nature and moments about something else as the Pachysandra led Ninja Turtles to fight it as poison but then understand that nature can be dead and alive.

Ear Worms

The group headed back towards The Log Playground Tree where Carmen, Nikki

and Milly were searching on the ground. Carmen held a millipede curled up in

her hand and Lee shared,

“Those were over in that new place we went to. It’s scared.”

139

Carmen argued, “No it’s not. I’ve seen one of these worms before. I think it

sleeps that way. That’s how it sleeps underground.”

Midas announced, “I’m going to make a bed for mine.”

“Let me try to get this little guy some food.”

Carmen’s drawing as reflective response: These worms are eating the mud. Two worms are smiling at the mud and eating it because it’s their food and the other two worms are best friends.

140

Lillian’s drawing as reflective response: There’s so many worms. They move and wiggle off my hand like all the time.

I noticed Tess wave me towards her and she whispered, “Look at them taking care of these worms with such care and empathy.” I said, “This reminds me of when I was little. These are the moments I lived for.” Fitz heard me and said, “When I was little I wouldn’t hold worms but now I do.” I smiled. Rosie said to Carmen, “Where’s that worm with pointys?” Carmen said, “That wasn’t a worm. Worms don’t have ears.” Milly added, “Yep. It was a caterpillar.”

Rosie moved a pile of leaves and discovered a large earthworm like before and screeched, “Worms, everybody!” Lillian picked up a small pile of them and let them move in her hand. Rosie touched several and with a squeaky voice mumbled, “a thousand.” Milly asked, “Can I have a worm because I don’t have a worm?” Tired of

141

waiting she moved a leaf and found her own. Then Rosie snatched up something small and hid it in her hand right away. I said, “What did you find, Rosie?” She said, “One of those ear worms again and it’s MINE!” I asked to see it and she said, “But don’t give it to someone else. It’s curled ‘cuz it’s scared but it does have little ears. Nikki remarked, “It hears you say that. You should tell him a bedtime story.” Land millipedes are a species of millipedes that have antennas. The children referred to them as ears and named them

Ear Worms. Then Nikki dangled a worm in Zeke’s face and said, “Don’t let my worms cry.” He shrugged and said, “We’re gonna cook them up some dirt. Let’s go.” The group moved the worms to rest on The Log Playground Tree. Carmen, Milly and Nikki made worm beds including pillows and blankets. Carmen also made one leaf into a pot of dirt for worm food. Midas’ bed became a pile of five worms and he shared, “Mine are getting cozy. They like their bed.” Once the worms were all tucked in, we headed back to school.

142

Worm’s cozy bed

Nature can be Dead and Alive

In this phenomenological experience, the children (be)came nature as the Roly

Polys and millipedes (ear worms) were personified to need things that children need.

They recognized that nature is like them and nature became them. The Roly Polys and millipedes were curling with scared feelings and sleeping in their beds. They needed bedtime stories and food and heard what the children were saying to them. They were served pillows and blankets for beds and pots of dirt for food. The children were caring for them as we (teachers) cared for the children, as we cared for each other. The Roly

Polys and Ear Worms may have cried without proper care Nikki reminded us. Zeke’s

‘little guy’ needed food and Midas helped them feel cozy. Zeke thought he’d try a potato bug, meeting his own need for food, before realizing they were not ideal for eating.

Lillian’s reflective drawing referred to the number of worms while Luis’ reflected on the

143

size of the Pachysandra. Additionally, Carmen’s worms smiled and were best friends.

These reflections both said and drawn shed light on children’s constructions of what nature is, can be and how the dynamics of living species allow us to become one and like nature we all need to be cared for.

Pat Cassandra, Potato bug, and Ear Worms were three anecdotes that were particularly challenging to experience, capture and reflect on with children. Part of the challenge was that the experiences happened fast and back-to-back. Each anecdote was equally important and so I worked diligently to capture them. At the time, I did not know what they were telling me but I could tell it was a pivotal moment in our study of nature together. I had an indescribable feeling about the experiences I was “in-seeing.” Later, I realized that it was because children were recognizing their own needs as being of same of nature. They needed care like nature needs care. As children began to know nature as being dead and alive, they began to realize that children had more similarities to nature than differences. The children realized they were nature, themselves.

Phenomenon IV: Nature Likes Children

Nature died two times. Here and there (pointing to the remaining trunk and the rest of the tree).” Fitz added, “I know. Maybe the worms got inside and ate and ate before it died.” Yoshi stopped tapping and said, “Yeah maybe.” Then after a pause he said, “Nope. Worms don’t like wood remember. They like mud and they like children.”

The eighty-foot Log Playground Tree continued to be our favorite place for exploration and today the children took a closer look at the tree itself. Because the tree had fallen we were intrigued as we could reach all parts of it. It was snapped off right at

144

its trunk. What remained standing was hollowed out and just high enough for the children to see over. They could even stand inside it. The rest of the tree lay nearby with an inviting hole from the snap-off point that was dark and mysterious.

The break at the stump and trunk of The Log Playground Tree

145

Yoshi, in the striped coat, doing his work.

Nature Died Two Times “Fitz, did you just break that off?” asked Luis.

“No, we’re trying to see what’s inside the tree,” he said.

Yoshi added, “Well you probably need to break it to see inside.”

“Oh yeah,” replied Fitz.

He took a pointed stick and struck it alongside the tree causing wood particles to fall to the ground. Yoshi and Nadia were also tapping the sides with smaller sticks. Yoshi announced,

“We have to do our work to see if we can find out where this tree came from.”

I asked, “How will you know? What will you need to find?”

146

“Well if we find a worm or something we will know it came from here. If we find water or something we will know it came from there (he pointed to the water) and the pond spit it out.”

“Are you trying to see why it fell down?” I asked.

Nadia answered, “Yeah it died here. It just died. Maybe the Sea Monster got it from over there (pointing to the water) and now it’s here.”

“No, it died because it died. Nature died two times. Here and there (pointing to the remaining trunk and the rest of the tree)” he proclaimed.

Fitz added, “I know. Maybe the worms got inside and ate it and ate it and it died.”

Yoshi stopped tapping. “Yeah maybe.”

Then he declared, “Nope. Worms don’t like wood, remember? They like mud and they like children.”

“Can you tell me more about how nature died two times?” I asked.

(Pointing to both parts again) “Well the tree was alive and something knocked it down. It died at its feet and its hands.”

“So, the tree is the nature that died two times?”

Nadia said, “Yep. The tree’s nature. It WAS nature. Now it’s in tree heaven.”

I added, “But now we get to play and explore it.”

Yoshi muttered, “And do our work.”

But Fitz perceived, “Well, part of the nature is here because Mrs. P you talked to us about a log being nature and we said, ‘yes.”

147

I nodded, “Yoshi, how do you know the worms like you? Like when you said

they don’t like wood.”

“Well, they wiggle on our hands and tickle us…like a lot” laughed Yoshi.

Nadia added, “They probably like to watch us work all the days.”

Right then Nadia found a centipede crawling up the trunk. She pulled her head away from the tree and said, “Oh boy! Here’s a worm!” Yoshi said, “Oh boy! You’re not right. That’s not a worm. A worm is too slippery and that one has legs.” I asked, “Well, does that mean it came from here?” with a smile. Yoshi knew I was talking about the tree and giggled, “Nope. We have to keep looking for water!”

Nadia’s drawing as reflective response: Yoshi is trying to break the tree with his stick. I’m behind the tree doing my own work.

148

Lee’s drawing as reflective response: Nadia, Yoshi and me breaking the tree to build our house. We put sticks, logs and dirt inside.

Where does nature come from? Where did The Log Playground Tree come from? Having the role of teacher meant I knew most of the children were aware that trees grew from planted seeds but Yoshi put this aside to consider the possibility of the pond spitting it out. I wondered if he preferred his theory because no one knew how the tree died. Imagining how the pond spit out the tree was more appealing than disease or ash ants. Nature died two times. This phrase was captivating as I thought about the day the tree fell. It snapped off before its roots and two pieces were left to die. It died in two places. Nature died two times. In his work, Yoshi argued his theory further while backing it up with possible evidence, a worm or water. He used reasoning to argue his theory. He used theory as symbolic thought. Bruner (1966) reminds us that children are capable of symbolic representation which generally refers to language and symbols but allows one to address the possibilities of an alternative reality, a strong tool in reflective

149

thinking. Nadia referred to Heaven. The symbolism of spirituality. The tree was nature.

The tree’s soul was gone now and they could only consider what was left, its shell, its bones, to figure out where it came from.

Salamanders are Family

Carmen shouted from the distance, “Mrs. P! I can’t see my worm house. It disappeared or something.” “Maybe you could build a new one,” I shouted back. Then

Nikki came over and said, “Mrs. P, I can’t find worms anywhere!” I offered to help her look a few yards from the Log Playground Tree and together we found a salamander.

Nikki yelled hardly containing her excitement, “We found something, we found something!” Carmen ran right over and said, “It’s a… It’s a…” and at the same time

Nikki and Carmen yelled, “Sal-a-mander!” Luis, Fitz, Midas, Rosie, Zeke and Yoshi came in a swarm to look with many shouting requests to hold it. I could feel that I was super protective as I said, “This is different than a worm, don’t squeeze it” and then I firmly said, “His skin is super fragile, please be careful.” Nikki bent down and kissed the salamander and I couldn’t contain my joy, “Nikki, you just kissed a salamander! How did it feel?” “Like that Salamander likes me” she remarked. Just a few weeks ago she struggled to touch a worm with one finger. I was amazed by her new comfort level with nature.

150

Nikki and Rosie’s Discovery of a Salamander

Luis announced, “That little buddy is worried about getting hurt.”

“We could take good care of him and we will be able to know if salamanders like

children,” suggested Carmen.

“They do!” Nikki said before kissing the tail this time in Rosie’s hands.

“Salamanders like us when we take care of them and talk to them,” confirmed

Luis.

“And kiss them,” Nikki added.

“We don’t kiss at school because of sick germs but we kiss our family,” Luis

reminded. “Yeah. Salamanders are our family. We protect them and hide them

and kiss them when they’re scared,” confirmed Nikki.

Carmen smiled, “Well. I don’t think it will turn into a prince like a frog would.”

151

Nikki paused, “This salamander has a big family with lots of cousins and he could

be the dad but we don’t know.”

Nikki’s Salamander Kiss

I asked, “Does anyone know how you would know if it’s the dad?”

“Well my dad is bigger than us and he’s a dad because he’s not a baby,” shared

Midas. Carmen added, “Well, salamanders are not big so I bet his babies are

teeny tiny and so he is the dad.”

“The babies are probably hiding super good so we don’t scare them,” declared

Yoshi.

“I knew it already,” confirmed Nikki, “when he gets home he’s going to say sorry

to his family for being gone for so long.”

I asked, “Do you think the mom is nearby?”

“Nah. She’s protecting the babies and we’re not gonna see those,” said Luis.

152

“I bet if we look under the log we could find their…uh…maybe,” Carmen thought aloud.

Nikki visualized the salamander’s family through symbolic representation.

First, we were the salamander’s family. Then when the salamander was Dad she talked about her views of family and how Dad would apologize for being gone. I speculated this probably had a deeper meaning for Nikki and possibly, she was reflecting on her own experience with her own dad or a father figure in her life.

Nikki kissed the salamander because he was family. As Nikki spoke, you could understand her thinking and the symbolism as she went through a spiral of different ideas. This was the most obvious observation where children understood that we are nature. In that moment, we were nature and nature was us, our family.

We had to hide and protect that salamander because he was family. Even I was protective over it. I remember being a child and thinking it was the best day when

I found a salamander. I begged and begged my parents to keep it as a pet, to make it our family. I was protective over it the day Nikki found one because just like when I was a child, finding them was hard! It was a special experience because days had gone by where I failed to find one as a child. I felt like I was living again, like my joy was just as strong as the children’s, maybe stronger, because my experience is a reflection on my own childhood. Perhaps when they are adults, they will reflect on this experience and feel a different sense of

“special.”

153

Dead, Dead Nature Bed

I noticed Zeke looking down at something on the Log Playground Tree and I went over to observe. He giggled and said, “Mrs. P, I found my first worms. Milly put them up here for me.” The worms wiggled on the log as Zeke walked away from them. Then

Rosie said to Tess, “We found sixteen! If we keep looking close, we might find ninety!” as she raised the pitch in her voice. Tess said, “Sixteen? Whoa!” Carmen asked, “Can we find one hundred?” I said, “Maybe, keep looking.”

Zeke observing the worms he discovered

Zeke giggled loudly so I walked toward him. He exclaimed,

“Whoa. I CAN’T pick up that one!”

“Whoa Zeke! That’s huge, said Tess, “show Carmen.”

154

Carmen holding a worm and ear worm

Carmen had her hands on another ear worm already and said, “Mrs. P, this one seems even longer. This is just like the one I found earlier, see?” Before I could respond, Zeke yelled,

“Carmen! Look!” cringing to keep the worm in his hands.

“Whoa! That’s ginormous!” she exclaimed.

“Gi-normous!” repeated Zeke proudly.

Milly snatched it from Zeke’s hands.

Zeke sighed, “Thanks Milly. I really couldn’t take that any longer.”

I asked, “What did you mean, Zeke?”

“Well that worm was too big. It felt like an anaconda. I think maybe it

swallowed some leaves whole.”

155

“Well, I’m proud of you for holding it and showing it to Carmen. You saw how

excited she was to see it.” I said.

Milly pushed it in Carmen’s face.

“Whoa!” Carmen pleaded, “I would love to show Rosie.”

Milly nodded and yelled, “Ros-ieeeee!”

“Did you find another ear worm? I have five,” Rosie smiled.

“No. Zeke found a gi-NORM-ous worm, see?”

“Oh, my gosh, guys!” she said.

Milly’s huge smile told Lillian to look too and Lillian said, “That’s so great. It’s not even wiggly either.” Zeke remarked, “Well, it’s kind of wiggly and that’s why I’m not touching it!” Milly peeked into her closed hands and said, “Yep. It’s not wiggling now.”

Zeke came and tapped my stomach and said, “Mrs. P, can you pa-lease find me another huge one?” I said, “You try, Zeke. Just look under the pieces of wood. It’s much more exciting when you find them.” He went back over to Milly and pleaded for his worm back. She would not comply and then Zeke fell to lay on the Log Playground Tree and proclaimed, “Fine. I’ll just sleep here on my Dead, Dead, Nature Bed.”

As he lay on the Log Playground Tree I patted his shoulder and reassured him,

“Zeke, you found the biggest worm of the day and reflected on it. You’ve worked hard today.” “Yep. So, I’m taking a nap on my bed.” I asked, “Do you want to tell me why you called it a Dead, Dead Nature Bed?” He sighed and said, “’Cuz I was mad at Milly but the tree really did die. I feel bad for him. I wish he was alive and was the home for all the gi-norm-ous worms.” I said, “Well even as a dead tree, many animals live by it

156

and probably inside the trunk.” He put his head up on his hands smiling, “Maybe it’s their tree house.” I smiled back before announcing it was time to head back to school.

Nature Likes Children

Although Zeke ended the day on his Dead, Dead Nature Bed, he had experienced a giant earthworm for the first time. The first time holding one. He cringed, he squirmed, he called it “ginormous.” He reflected on its size as an Anaconda. He just

“couldn’t take it.” He experienced it. He had a stronger understanding of how worms felt, how they moved, and why other children responded the way he did. At times with disgust. He was proud of his discovery as were Carmen and Rosie. Although he couldn’t take it, he wanted another one. Milly was kind to decline which made him deflate on The

Log Playground Tree. Each experience leads us to another. If Zeke would have found another worm right away I would have missed his reflection of feeling sad for The Log

Playground Tree’s death. But was it a sad ending, or was it the treehouse of many animals? It was the birth of our many experiences of nature.

Nature is family. I knew the children were getting close to recognizing be(in)nature. That nature is a space outside of the classroom but that we are nature too.

Perhaps they did already. Did Midas? Calling nature family is a true sentiment to recognizing that we are nature too. Nikki discovered that nature needed care like humans, rather quickly in my opinion. I assumed that it was because she recognized my urgency in protecting the salamander and protecting all nature. Once she could look passed the “eww” factor of slippery, wet skin, she embraced it. Even kissed it. I admit that something about salamanders feels more alive than worms. It must be that they have

157

eyes and legs. It makes me think about buying meat from the store. It feels easier to purchase meat without eyes. Ground beef versus whole salmon. Maybe that is just me.

Zeke saw the value in holding nature despite the challenging voice in his head saying to let go. Another pivotal moment. Touching nature helps us know that we are nature, ourselves.

Phenomenon V: We’re All Nature

The millipede flipped and flopped in his hand and he said, “This one is too wiggly. It probably thinks I’m a big bird that’s going to eat him up.” I said, “Maybe. Can you imagine being as small as a centipede and having someone hold you when you wanted to be in the dirt, instead?” He said, “He probably likes to have us friends out here more instead of being bored alone.”

Right next to our school, Carmen yelled, “Whoa! Our butterfly came back to visit us!” Lillian was being dropped off at school and she met us by the parking lot.

Nikki, Midas and Fitz yelled, “Li-ll-ian! Our butterfly came back to visit us! Come see!” She yelled, “Okay guys!” as she carried her lunchbox next to her mom. We had just started towards the Log Playground when we discovered the butterfly. Nikki carefully touched the monarch’s wings and Nadia and Zeke both pushed into Nikki to see it too. She whined, “Ugh! Stop pushing me. It’s fragile.” Zeke asked, “Can I just see it, please?” Nikki backed up and I called to Tess who had kept walking with the rest of the group, “Tess! There’s a butterfly!” She walked the group back to meet us and Midas told her, “It’s our butterfly. It came back to visit us!” Tess said, “Oh the one you had in your classroom? That’s great.” The whole group crowded around the butterfly and

158

Carmen said, “Remember it’s wings are so fragile. It bled out of its rolled-up chrysalis.

Please don’t hurt it.” Luis added, “We watched it so long. The poor little buddy. It missed us.” I said, “It’s great that we get to see it again. Its wings seem larger.” Lee said,

“It might not be our butterfly, guys.” Fitz added, “It probably grew up and came back to see us.”

The Return of the Monarch

Zeke and Nadia were ready to move on and started to walk towards the path.

When we entered the Log Playground it was as though everyone knew their plan. Zeke immediately climbed onto the Monkey Bar of the Log Playground Tree. He shouted in a teasing way as he swung, “You can’t catch me up here! Oh, no you can’t!” At the same time Nikki asked, “How do I get up there again?” I said, “Remember at the bottom and then you can climb up to where Zeke is.” Nikki carefully climbed up the Slide of the Log

159

Playground Tree and said, “I can totally do this now. My mom would be so happy.” I agreed, “We can show her this part of the movie if you’d like.” “I am the movie star, duh!” she spits out. I laughed and could hear Luis ask, “Remember when we were looking to see inside the tree?” Yoshi heard him, nodded, and said, “Milly and Nikki, do you want to play with me? Follow me if you want to play with me.” Luis followed him and Yoshi began to pound on the stump of the tree and Luis found a stick to join in.

That butterfly missed us. In this journey, I have come to understand that each experience leads us to know something new, remember something old or both. This is especially true for children. For adults, we often fly through the busyness of life and skip moments to speed ahead to the next. That was the task at hand, to get to The Log

Playground. Tess may have seen the butterfly but we were on a mission to get to The

Log Playground. When given a task, it’s easy to forget your surroundings. To notice life around us in the moment. Seeing the Monarch butterfly reminded the children of the one we raised together. Our experiences lead us to make connections and process what is happening. Seeing the Monarch sparked a memory and led the children to think about the one we raised and the possibility of it coming back to see us because “it missed us.”

The lifespan of Monarchs is typically 2-6 weeks, except for the ones that migrate to

Mexico. In that moment, I realized that my factual knowledge as an adult led me to immediately assume it was not same butterfly. Reflecting on it more, I had hoped that it was a Monarch that would migrate to Mexico and I considered how it was more pleasing to perceive that the butterfly missed us. Furthermore, Carmen reminded us of the butterfly’s journey, “it bled out of its rolled-up chrysalis,” as if reminding us of the

160

complexity of its journey since birth.

Yoshi waiting for work companions

Balancing on the stump and trunk of The Log Playground Tree

161

Tree Heaven

Lee, Yoshi, Fitz and Nikki were balancing on the Log Playground Tree when

Yoshi said, “We knew this tree was from the pond, it died here.”

Lee added, “Yep. It just fell here and fell here” (pointing to both parts of the

tree).

“That part went to tree Heaven but this part didn’t,” Fitz said as he pounded the

stump.

I asked, “Why not the stump?”

Fitz smiled, “Well, I think it needed more time here for us to do our work.”

Yoshi added, “Once you die, you go to Heaven but your body stays here. So, the

tree’s body is here.”

Fitz reminded, “We have to see what’s in the inside.”

I asked, “Well how will you know when you get to the inside?”

“Oh, we will probably get to the inside next year,” smiled Yoshi.

This told me that Yoshi enjoyed the process of breaking the tree apart and the sense of real work it offered. Zeke climbed to stand on top of the stump while balancing with one foot on the trunk of the Log Playground Tree and suddenly a large chunk fell to the ground and he slid slowly landing on top of it. Fitz, Milly and Midas cheer, “Woo! Oh yeah! You did it!” A huge smile covered Zeke’s face but Yoshi yelled, “Ughhhhh. I was supposed to do that! Now my work is ruined!” Zeke moved and Milly laid on her belly with her hands supporting her head. It was the perfect size to support her as a bed.

She pretended to snore and Yoshi said, “Well, I guess you need a bed” forgiving Zeke.

162

He began to pound and Zeke announced looking at his arm muscles, “I didn’t know I was that strong.” Yoshi confirms, “Well you have been a strong worker.”

Yoshi: Liam, Nadia and me doing our work

Milly tried hard to scrape the bark off another tree nearby. She gritted her teeth and slid her tongue out while leaning her whole body into the branch she was using as a wedge. She grunted, “I’m using my body to break this tree. There might be things living inside.” Zeke offered, “You do your work on that side and I’ll work over here.” Yoshi watched on while holding a thick long branch on his shoulder like a shotgun and said,

163

“I’m on my lunch break” and tapped the ground with his boot. Midas and Fitz were standing on a fallen limb, moving it back and forth with their feet as a teeter-totter not speaking. As I looked around, everyone seemed to be relaxing in the space, zoning in and out.

Tree Heaven was a repeated topic of discussion. The children continued talking about where the tree came from but reconfirmed several times that it was the pond. How the tree died remained an unsolved mystery. It felt fitting that religion was brought into the conversation of life and death. Several of the children shared their beliefs about the tree’s soul going to Heaven with the tree’s body remaining. Seeing Yoshi and others pound away at the tree’s stump led me to question, were they cremating the tree? As the sawdust covered the ground, the dust became ashes. Fitz considered that the tree’s stump did not go to Heaven so that we could still do our work. To me, most of the work happened on the tree’s trunk and branches but the children called what they did to the stump work. I also thought about how I might argue that a tree’s soul would be in its stump because of its growth from a seed, rooted in the ground, the roots are the tree’s strength. I saw the irony. The children were manipulating the nature, pounding it to dust, while talking about how the tree had a soul like a human acknowledging trees are like humans and so we are like them. So, children can be(in)nature at the same time. They can manipulate nature in a space while recognizing they are nature themselves.

164

Nature Talk

As the children worked, I thought it might be a good time to talk more about nature and I said, “Nothing we’re exploring right now is alive. Some people think that things that are dead are not nature, does anyone want to tell me what they think about it?

Lillian says,

“Well I like worms a lot. They’re the best nature but this is The Log Playground

Tree and we call it Log because it’s nature.”

“This tree we’re rockin’ on is dead. It’s nature,” adds Fitz.

“Yep. It’s nature,” nodded Midas.

I say, “Does anyone else want to say what their favorite nature is, like Lillian?”

“My mom is nature! She’s breathing. She’s smiling ‘cuz she misses me. She’s

my best favorite,” Nikki demands.

I smile, “Anyone else?”

At this point, Rosie and Nadia are laying with their backs on the end of the Log

Playground tree, lounging. Rosie says,

“P, we’re all nature. We breathe two times and poop too and die.”

I say, “What do you mean two times?”

She holds her chest, breathing in and then out, emphasizing two.

I say, “What about you, Luis or Lee?”

“Well yesterday, I picked strawberries and little peppers at home, they’re nature.

We don’t eat out here but I like our tree. Actually… I love it. We’re all nature,

the logs and us,” Luis remarked.

165

“I like finding things and seeing them…probably,” added Lee.

“I probably like the tiny baby toad most and the Evil Sea Witch like me,”

suggested Nadia.

I ask, “Zeke you’ve been listening. Do you want to say anything?”

He sighed, “Well I know what’s nature and what’s not. We’re all nature and I

don’t wanna touch the wiggly things today. I’m just not gonna do it.”

Nature breathes, poops and dies. Like Rosie said, “We’re all nature. We breathe two times and poop too and die. Rosie offered a summary of our coming to know nature together in one comment. The way she stated it made me feel like my job was finished.

Like saying, “Hey P! We get it. You can stop asking us these questions now.” I had hoped they would learn that nature is like them and they are like nature. That they would learn that nature is diverse and complex. we are nature. Luis loved The Log Playground

Tree. He was not the only one. The children built a relationship with the tree as it encouraged them (re)think nature. To ‘be(in) nature.’ Nikki explained how her mom was nature because her mom breathed. Nikki learned that like us, nature has families and like us nature breathes. Considering how we are nature allows us to understand that nature needs care and love.

Salamander Brother

Tired of our conversation, Zeke ran and shimmied up The Monkey Bar and hopped down, “Tess, did you see that? I hopped right down from that monkey bar. I couldn’t do that before.” “Let me see,” she replied, before he did it again. Fitz, Carmen

166

and Rosie were now at the highest point of the Log Playground Tree when Carmen hopped down and said,

“I’ll let you know if I find any bugs, Rosie.” And you dropped your mitten.”

“Oh! I always do that,” laughed Rosie.

Fitz asked, “Hey guys? Do you think all the worms are sleeping because it’s

cold?” “Well it’s a little warmer actually,” Carmen remarked.

“Yeah. No mittens,” adds Rosie.

“Maybe they’re in their cozy beds and we got to find them,” considered Fitz.

“They probably are in a group hug so they can stay warm,” smiled Carmen.

“Do you think they know to use their leaf beds we made them?” asks Rosie.

“Yeah,” replied Fitz.

Rosie looked for a while and then shouts louder than normal,

“I found something! It’s a bug! It’s a beetle, it’s hard!”

“Let me look!” said Carmen, “Oh yeah. It is a beetle.”

“Let’s make a bed for it,” added Milly.

She picked up a large leaf near the Log Playground tree and laid it on the trunk. “This can be its trampoline,” she announced. When Milly places the leaf, the beetle falls a few inches down the side of the tree and Carmen catches it. She whispers, “Got it!”

Rosie, irritated, says, “No! No trampoline! A bed! We’re making a bed!”

I ask, “Hey. What’s all this about? What’s wrong?”

“I want to have it. I want to make it a bed, no one else.”

“I want to be lucky and find a beetle too,” sighed Carmen.

167

Rosie grumbled, “Ugh,” and says, “Yeah. I am lucky.”

Moments pass by before Carmen yelled, “P! We found something!” I walked over to see and the girls had just turned over a log. Two wet salamanders laid in the log’s print.

Carmen was holding a worm in one hand while touching the salamanders with the other.

Rosie whispered,

“Aww. Look at it! Can I hold it?”

“Just pet it lightly first” whispered Carmen.

Nikki comes over, “Is it a worm?”

Carmen whispers, “No they are salamanders.”

Rosie goes to pick it up and says, “Whoa. It’s so wiggly. How can I pick it up?”

“Soooo carefully,” remarks Carmen.

Carmen tries to pick one up with just one hand and whispers, “Yeah. Wow. Very

wiggly.” She placed her worm on a nearby log and says, “You rest here a

minute.” Carmen gets a salamander in both hands and shrieks as it falls to the

ground.” I ask, “What made you scream?” She says, “Because it wiggled way too

fast.” Rosie giggled at the wiggling as she loses it in the soil. She moves some of

the ground around and instantly jumps up and takes two steps back. “Ahhh! A

tiny spider,” she yelled. Then she pauses and says, “Oh well. It’s just tiny” and

begins looking again. As she looks she says, “Ugh. I can’t find my salamander.”

I say, “Just keep looking under those leaves.” She moves some leaves and I say,

“Oh! I see its head.” She picks it up and closes her hands loosely. She opens

them to look and moves it from one hand to another whispering, “Whoa. I got it.”

168

She throws her head back laughing and says through giggles, “Ha! He’s tickling

me.” She puts her mouth close to her closed hands and whispered, “That tickled

me…you tickled me.”

Midas is nearby and Carmen says, “Show that salamander to Midas.”

Rosie nods, “Midas! I found a salamander over here.”

“Can I hold him?” He asks as he peeks in her hands.

“Yeah, sure” as she circles back around and checks back to see if she can

quickly find him his own to hold.

He asks, “Can you help me find one?”

“Oh-kay,” Rosie says, “Thanks for not taking it from me. We found it by

this log.” “They’re just so very cute!” she continues as she scanned the

ground.

Carmen placed her salamander on the log for just a moment and Midas says, “Found it!” and went to pick up Carmen’s.

“No! I was just resting my hands for a minute,” she snapped.

Picking it back up she demanded, “Ahh-ah! Stop tickling me you little

salamander!”

Sighing, she continued, “When they wiggle really fast, it tickles too much!”

Rosie peered closer at Carmen’s and Carmen said,

“Rosie when they wiggle, they tickle. Like tickle-wiggle, tickle-wiggle.”

“Pah-lease…help me find one. Please!” Midas pleads.

Carmen says, “Okay. They’re very squirmy.”

169

Milly joins them showing her hands. She is holding a well-formed ball of mud. Carmen

says,

“Oh! I bet my salamander would love that mud ball, Milly.”

“Yep. He likes it!” as Carmen put the salamander’s face by the mud ball.

“Rosie, can we see if yours likes my mud ball?” asked Milly.

Rosie lets go of it in her hands and Fitz watches. She says, “This little guy is quite a handful. I can’t even take it.” Midas talks Carmen into holding her salamander and Milly passed the one she was holding to Fitz. Fitz giggles loudly and spins in a circle as the salamander moves in his hand.

“I can’t believe how cute he is. He’s crawling up my sleeve because he’s cold. I

know it!” squeals Midas.

Midas holds it between his fingers and flips it over to see the belly. He remarks,

“Oh, my goodness! He’s so spotty. He’s like a Dalmatian.”

“Why are you tickling me so much, brother?” Fitz yells to the salamander in his

hand.

“Yep. Mines my brother too,” confirms Midas.

Tess told us it was time to head back to school and so Midas puts the salamander on the log and says, “I’ll miss you Salamander Brother.” Right then, Carmen wrapped her arm around Midas and says, “Pssst. You’ll always be my brother.”

170

Midas carefully holding a salamander

Midas noticing the salamander’s spots

171

Midas’ drawing as reflective response: Here’s my little brother, Mikey!

I assumed that the conversations about group hugs and cozy beds were the children’s way of embracing the chill in the air that day. After we walked for a while, our bodies were warm and we could shed our mittens. The children also empathized with the worms or insects that could not escape into the warm school like they could. When thinking about a group hug, I thought about the warmth it brings. The physical warmth of being close but also the emotional warmth of being held and cared for by people you like. It makes you think of love and family. The salamanders became our brothers. As

Rosie was searching for her salamander she was forced to address her fear of spiders again. She jumped and shrieked at first but remembered she had overcame it before and could again. When I think about what it means to have a brother, I envy people with

172

older brothers who probably tickled them and picked on them when they were young just like the salamanders were tickling the children. I wondered if some of the children longed for an older brother too. When Midas said sadly, “I’ll miss you my salamander brother,” Carmen comforted him by wrapping him in her arms and telling him that he is her brother. In the end, we found that if we care for nature, nature will care for us.

We’re All Nature

The part of be(in)nature that I find most important is ‘be nature.’ That children can connect with nature to learn they are nature themselves. This phenomenon is named

We’re All Nature because the children learned that All included children and anything once alive, particularly things that could breathe. They learned later that plants and logs, dead or alive are nature too. This realization allowed their relationship and connection with nature to grow. For example, the butterfly in the beginning “missed us.” Although it could not express feelings, it missed us because it was alive. The children knew that living things had feelings like humans, or, that ultimately, we are the same. Also, conversations about The Log Playground Tree’s soul were repeated. It was speculated that the stump stayed for us to do our work. It stayed for us, to please us. The trunk part of the tree went to Heaven but the stump did not. Religious beliefs often bring people comfort. I knew that the children felt comfort in the aftermath of Tree Heaven versus accepting its death, its end. Additionally, Yoshi and his crew pounded the stump which allowed them to look inside. I wondered if they thought the stump “stayed for them” because the inside looked different than the trunk and perhaps still alive. Although they could see inside the trunk, it was dark and eerie and even I felt compelled to stay away

173

from it. Ending our experience with salamander tickles was powerful for us. Fitz accepted the salamander as his brother which told me he accepted that he is nature or that nature deserves the same respect. Midas joined in with his own compassion and his caring side shined through. Carmen accepted his need for care and embraced him allowing me to see the children bond over a special moment that felt like family.

The Themes of Nature

Figure 6, to follow, identifies overlapping timeframes and themes derived from these stories of punctum while acknowledging the intersecting sources of data. Videos of children’s pre-reflective and reflective experiences were most valuable as I was able to review the videos with unlimited opportunities to reflect and understand. Next reflective invitations, initiated by the children or myself, were audio recorded to add additional comprehension. By collecting both video and audio recordings for the majority of the pre-reflective and reflective experiences, I could ask the children for clarification while reviewing the videos with them and taking notes. Furthermore, most of the children found drawing as a reflective response to be part of our routine when returning to school which allowed Tess and I to transcribe their words immediately after their drawing was complete to confirm meaning-making.

Figure 6 acted as a precursor to Figure 7 and assisted in understanding how themes developed and carried on throughout our experiences in The Log Playground.

Particularly, a theme of Care originated as the children joined together from two different classrooms and became a community of members caring for one another. Over time, the children found value and meaning in also caring for nature. As children developed

174

stronger relationships with(in) nature, they realized that nature, like children, needs care and compassion. Care was a theme that developed and remained in every experience throughout the study. Next, the children found that contrary to care is not caring or a negative action against a living thing which led to a theme of Good vs. Evil or Life and

Death. Once children recognized the reality of nature being both dead and alive, a theme known as The Criteria for Nature developed as they noticed that life was fragile and their actions could impact life. This led to children recognizing Needs as a theme next. Since nature can be dead and alive, nature that was alive needed protection just like children.

The children also decided that nature needs experiences like they did including comfort, adventure and joy. While the children already knew about Family as a theme, over time they began to see nature as similar which meant nature could be treated and called family such as in Salamander Brother.

175

Figure 6. Themes of Nature

176

Our Phenomena of Nature led me to know children and nature differently.

Reflections of our time together in The Log Playground will continue in Chapter V as teacher and researcher implications are discussed and a visual tool is presented. Teacher implications will discuss the children’s growth in physical, cognitive and social- emotional domains to show how the goals of early childhood are supported outdoors.

Next, the visual tool identifies how the construction of Figure 7 served as a practical way to organize our five phenomena and themes derived from data while considering my research questions and connections leading to the greater phenomena. Lastly, the intricacies of doing phenomenology with children are discussed as the uniqueness and challenges of the double hermeneutic method suggest new opportunities for doing research with children.

Chapter V

Constructing Nature with Preschoolers

Punctum is that accident which pricks me but also bruises me, is poignant to me.

--Roland Barthes, Reflections on

Photography

The purpose of this study was to understand phenomenologically how preschoolers came to know nature over time. Specifically, this investigation examined how children constructed meanings of nature in a group. When children experience something for the first time they are forced to inquire about what it is, what it is like and what it means to them and others. As children grappled with phenomena of nature, they rested in a state of knowing and un-knowing, being and becoming, challenging each other to know nature differently (Davies, 2014; Sellers, 2013;). In this chapter, implications for how phenomenology can serve as a vehicle for (re)knowing will be explored including children’s learning progressions. Next, a visual tool is presented as a resource for managing phenomenological reflections. Teaching and research implications are discussed as Learning with(in) Nature, We Care to (Re)know Nature, Knowing Nature

Differently and Making Sense of Nature to provide possibilities for how other children and teachers might (re)know nature in future studies. Additionally, the literature supporting themes and discussion points will be reviewed to confirm or challenge existing theories about children in nature. Further, my reflections on the challenges of phenomenological writing with punctum as well as remaining wonderings and possibilities for future research will be discussed.

177

178

To study children’s meanings with(in) nature, I needed to empower the children to guide the inquiry and hold ownership of their own questions, theories, and desires and lead me to understand. Listening to children, on adult terms, usually means “we listen in order to fit what we hear into what we already know” (Davies, 2014, p. 21). This work considered listening to children differently, through ethically listening. This meant that the research was consistently ours rather than just adults’ and listening to children for it all: what they said, did, and how they interacted with(in) nature with pre-reflective and reflective responses. The research questions were broad enough that I could capture any interaction with nature and still gain new knowledge than before the study began. The following research questions provoked the study of children with(in) nature:

1. How do preschool children, ages four and five, experience (interact and

respond to the direct physical elements) an outdoor wetlands environment

near their school?

2. How do young children construct meanings about nature in a group setting?

3. How do young children’s meanings of nature emerge and change over a school year?

The way children interacted and responded to the direct physical elements with(in) nature was by using all their senses while having conversations about their wonderings, inquires, and theories about what nature is, does, and means to them and to others. Next, phenomena I, II, and III addressed the second question, how do young children create meanings about nature in a group setting? Children grappled with nature’s phenomena as they shared with others what they knew and desired to know. New experiences and knowledge of others provided each child with opportunities to challenge old theories and

179

replace what they used to know with new understandings. Finally, phenomena IV and V addressed the final question, how do young children’s meanings of nature emerge and change over a school year? Over time, children could see how nature had similarities and needs just like humans. The more nature looked like us, the more children felt compelled to protect and care but also realize that nature likes us, and dead or alive, we are all nature.

Learning with(in) Nature

While discovering nature, children made strides in physical, cognitive and social- emotional goals. Based on the literature in Chapter II, we recognize that experiences in the outdoors, specifically in natural environments, support children’s physical, cognitive, and social-emotional development, or the primary goals of early childhood education in the United States (Clements, 2004, Little & Eager, 2010; Lester and Russell 2008;

NAEYC, 2012). This study provides a new argument for ongoing curriculum in the outdoors while specifically empowering children to guide their own inquiries while recognizing their learning needs. Our experiences in The Log Playground supported the children’s development of these goals in the following ways:

1. Physical Development (Gross & Fine Motor). Each experience of The Log

Playground Tree encouraged children to challenge themselves physically; to

climb, slide, swing, balance, crawl and jump. The children challenged themselves

to conquer various lengths and heights. At times, children took off their boots to

challenge themselves more in bare feet. While the specific climbing or moving

on the tree evoked gross motor skills, manipulating bugs, bark, twigs, leaves and

180

other natural loose parts supported fine motor skill mastery. Additionally, the use

of all senses let children have direct experiences (Kellert, 2001) with nature,

regularly, which arguably allows children to know nature better than just seeing it

through glass or bars at a zoo.

2. Cognitive Development. As proclaimed by Piaget (1952), Bruner (1960) and

Vygotsky (1978), children needed to construct knowledge for themselves for

authentic understanding. Each day we engaged in investigations leading to

comprehension, problem-solving and reflection, i.e.; how to find a salamander,

where the tree came from or why centipedes curl when picked up. Each

investigation led to the co-construction of new knowledge.

3. Social-Emotional Development. We came to know nature together in the same

group of fourteen for nine months. This meant we got to know each other well,

our likes and dislikes, fears, joys, etc. This meant the children learned how to

care, listen with empathy, negotiate and disagree with respect. Over time the

children pulled each other into their experiences based on their relationships, i.e.;

Showing Carmen any new animals, calling out Lillian for worm discoveries,

counting on Midas for Ninja Turtle fights.

These examples identify how children can be re(con)ceived outdoors and the planning of curriculum becomes a cooperative, cohesive act that children and teachers are doing together, informing each other to (re)know.

After transcribing the abundant data and reflecting on our time together, I had no doubt that the children learned as many skills outdoors as they did indoors that school

181

year. Confidence in risk-taking and their relationships with nature was what I discovered right away. In addition to the goals addressed broadly above, all twelve children also made individual progress. In conversations with their parents, I could share these short- written reflections about the physical, cognitive and social-emotional goals and how children approached them in nature:

 Rosie. Rosie taking her boots and socks off most visits taught us that she had

become one with nature, or became comfortable, and that while others might have

tread lightly or tiptoed because of their fear of the unknown under their feet or

hesitation to hurt their feet, she ran freely. Her bare feet allowed her to grip the

trees, like reverting to the plantar grasp infant reflex, she naturally grasped with

trees with ease. She shared her knowledge of camouflaged animals as one

example of cognitive development. She cared about nature and the group and

even when she missed her mom or struggled to share nature, she could overcome

her inner struggles and push the group to continue learning.

 Nikki. Nikki, who entered nature slowly for concern of her shoes getting messy

and hesitation to touch nature was kissing salamanders, toes in the mud, by the

end. She climbed to the top of The Log playground tree by the end of the year and

a proud smile on her face told us she mastered a goal of her own. She learned

about reading animals’ body language and how to be cautious of animals that bite

while learning about ones that do not. She overcame her fear and embraced

species that are wet and discovered that nature needs love.

182

 Midas. Midas’ outward roughness led others to walk carefully near him and

cautioned them to share nature with him. While having mastered most physical

skills, the group was challenged to help Midas see that nature needs our care. In

the beginning, Midas searched for adventure and cause & effect scenarios in the

forest. We helped him find both without harming nature. Learning that we are

nature let Midas see that nature has needs and if we care for it, it becomes our

family. These affirmations taught Midas empathy and helped him gain the respect

of his classmates.

 Yoshi. He constantly challenged himself physically. He wanted to get to the

center or the roots because he believed he would find evidence of how it was

knocked down. His relationships with others were important to him but he was

not steering too far from pounding that stump to dust. He shared his knowledge

of nature often and used problem-solving strategies to argue why it was important

for him to do his work. He was disappointed when Zeke seemed to make the

ultimate strike breaking the tree but could accept that hard jobs need team work.

 Milly. Milly made great strides in her risk-taking. By the end, you would not

expect that she was the same girl who cried trying to launch herself up on the tree.

She physically could climb to the top but she needed time to gain confidence in

herself with several attempts. She took care of the group which showed her

compassion for others. She let others see that animals need the things that we

need. Milly often asked questions for clarification which pushed the

comprehension of others, Milly was a teacher.

183

 Fitz. Fitz’ love for wet, wiggly worms was contagious. His high-pitched squeal

caught everyone’s attention and made you feel like you must touch the nature he

was, led you to want to feel the way he was feeling. Fitz was cautious but

assertive in his approach to nature. For example, he climbed trees only if he knew

no one was close enough to push him off. He often asked thought provoking

questions about how things came to be which led others to think deeply. He

wondered about where animals go when the seasons changed and he hoped they

wouldn’t die. He cared about nature when we began our study but felt just as

strongly about taking care of it when we finished.

 Carmen. Carmen reminded me of mother nature if you could put mother nature

into human form. Her love for nature from the beginning surprised me. I

assumed she spent a lot of time in nature and that someone in her life also led her

to know nature. She took care of nature. Being around her made you want her to

care for you too. When she made the worms a bed, I envisioned her tucking all

the children into a worm bed with a cozy leaf pillow and blanket. She was driven

and she strived to climb the trees as high as the others. She was the first to

challenge Midas to see nature differently. Her factual knowledge about nature

could not be argued. Her mother-like tendencies were effective with Midas. I

knew by the end, she helped him see nature differently.

 Zeke. Zeke was funny and he knew it. He made me laugh because he seemed

lazy to find his own worms but when he did he was thrilled! He lived for

experience and so as his teacher you wanted to do the work just to see his

184

response. He had no fear. He climbed so high once that I had to hide my own fear

and talk him back down. His courageous demeanor led the group to take greater

risks. He learned from others by watching them experience and asked questions to

clarify. Although he had little patience for discovering nature, he shared his

passion with others when he did.

 Nadia. Nadia’s dramatic expressions brought everyone’s imagination to the

surface. I hoped she would always remember these experiences in nature

especially how the trees hid us. She would take any risk if someone was with her

and liked to stay near a teacher. I pushed her to be independent. By the end, she

took leadership of her risk-taking and encouraged others to draw intricate details

in their reflective drawings.

 Lee. I could count on Lee for information to push children’s cognitive inquires.

Often when children asked me specific questions about nature, I asked Lee to

help. He enjoyed facts about animals and supporting Lee to share what he knew

helped others see him as an expert but also see they could seek out their group

members for knowledge. I strived to help Lee be more imaginative and open-

minded to alternative ideas, i.e.; the pond spitting out the tree. Lee was eager to

tell his parents about new discoveries we found in the forest in hopes to more find

information about them.

 Lillian. Lillian was often quiet but would study things so closely that you knew

she was discovering, thinking, wondering about whatever was in her hands. I

once watched her study a pink leaf by flipping it side to side for over five

185

minutes. When asked what she was thinking about, she would often smile and

say, “Nothing!” I learned most from Lillian when she was engaged with others

and forgot I was around. I worked hard to empower her and let her know I was

learning from her too.

 Luis. I will never forget Luis’ passion about pachysandra. We learned that

nature can be dead and alive the day Luis introduced us to pachysandra. It was

true that I did not know the invading plant was called that and we all learned from

Luis that day. Luis approached nature cautiously but I learned it was because he

knew things lived under our feet and he was trying to be careful not to hurt any of

it. His gentleness helped others see value in slowing down to know nature. His

knowledge about gardening encouraged us to plant any seed we found and

wonder if it would grow.

These reflections provide practical implications for teachers as they consider planning for curriculum in the outdoors. However, holding value for children’s individual and group construction of meanings while ethically listening is imperative for acquiring assessments in this way. Furthermore, while this study suggests an extended amount of time for a connection to exist, each experience in nature, even five minutes long, is one step towards fostering a relationship where children can know nature for themselves.

We Care to Re(know) Nature

Children’s ongoing experiences in nature led them to care, listen with empathy, negotiate and disagree with respect beyond what I consider typical growth in social- emotional development. Initially, children understood value in caring for one another, for

186

humans. It was easy to understand how being pushed down or not listened to felt un- caring or not respected as a human. As time went on children began to listen to nature differently, recognizing that nature has feelings and needs too. The butterfly came back to visit because we cared for it and it missed us. Nature can be dead and alive which meant nature died or was killed. We empathized and understood death as life’s end, as sadness because The Log Playground Tree died. We understood nature’s fear as it curled or pulled back like we did when being surprised by a giant spider. Children disagreed and negotiated when I empowered their opportunities to share past experiences and knowledge to argue new points. Others listened and were open-minded to new ideas leading to group understanding. Towards the end, the children understood nature as being the same and needing the things they needed including food, comfort, and happiness. The children built homes and cozy beds for the worms, trampolines for beetles, and played with(in) nature. They listened with empathy and considered how ultimately, we are nature and nature needs care.

Constructing Nature: A Visual Tool

In addition to reading and re-reading, writing and re-writing or the act of phenomenology, I constructed a visual figure, Figure 7 Constructing Nature, to support my conceptual understanding of each phenomena and meaning derived from the data. To recap, our generated data consisted of 2400 minutes of video, 110 minutes of audio recording, 120 pages of handwritten notes, 56 drawings as reflections, and 88 photographs. Creating a visual tool was necessary to help me uncover what meanings were reoccurring and meaningful to the group while writing Chapter IV, Our Phenomena

187

of Nature. The figure is discussed outside of Chapter IV because while it led to a more articulate understanding, it did not serve as data but as a tool for naming the five phenomena we discovered with(in) nature. Furthermore, Figure 7 Constructing Nature is deconstructed in Figures 8-12 to discuss the themes of each phenomenon individually before leading to the greater whole.

Constructing the figure was challenging in several ways. The complexity of meaning-making with children is difficult to articulate in the form of shapes and boxes because often shapes and boxes insinuate different things; such as separation and closed or rather concluded ideas. In the following figures, the meanings are not meant to appear as closed because lines separate them or a box surrounds them. The meanings are divided in such a way to suggest a clearer understanding because words scattered on a blank page means less. The deconstruction of Figure 7. Constructing Nature shows how things can be interpreted separately but then when put together, a culminating understanding is revealed. Blue is used in Figure 7. Constructing Nature to show how phenomenological research begins with questions leading to data generation of themes and ultimately a deep understanding of the studied phenomenon.

188

Figure 7 Figure

. Constructing. Nature

189

The symbolism of the figure representing a flower provides irony but also an attempt to articulate how I viewed the generation of data. Nature is in the middle circle signifying how the themes and phenomena grew out of our study, out of nature, like petals of a flower. The triangles signify how each theme and phenomena are connected and how in a constructivist context each individual idea leads to group understanding.

The boxed themes are positioned to show that while certain ideas emerged from phenomena, they still assisted in the construction of others. The numbered and arrowed ideas signify how meaning-making has a beginning but does not end with our study and will continue throughout our lives.

Figure 8. Nature Hides us from Evil

Nature Hides us from Evil was the first phenomena we discovered in The Log

Playground. We remember how Nadia described the trees “as hiding us” and Rosie described the toad as being “camouflaged,” where nature hid nature from us. A combination of Daddy-Long Legs caused fear for a moment until the children realized what they knew about the spiders. Additionally, for a short time, we were the toad’s evil

(we made it vulnerable with our touching and picking up and carrying it) until it was camouflaged and escaped. The themes derived from this first phenomenon, Care and

Good vs. Evil, illustrate how children grapple with life’s phenomena in every experience.

190

The group struggled with Midas’ with his urge to kill things but accepted the challenge of teaching him to care for others and care for nature. They had to figure out how to get him to listen and teach him that nature needs care and understanding just like children.

Ultimately, the group was teaching Midas empathy. Before long, Midas knew nature and protected it as his brother. Furthermore, Nadia and others provided the group with situations to enact Good vs. Evil. From defeating Ninja Turtles and the Evil Sea witch to realizing the death of The Log Playground tree and wondering how the tree became a log.

The children revisited the ideas repeatedly leading them to understand that Good vs. Evil means there is a protagonist that causes fear and conflict but that Good can overcome the fear, creating a Good ending like that in fairytales.

Figure 9. Nature is Unpredictable and Surprising

Next, Nature is Unpredictable and Surprising brought us the shrieking thrill of finding a pile of giant wiggly earth worms in the mud. The story of Nikki’s angst, wanting to touch vs. not wanting to touch the worms, continued throughout our time in

191

the forest that day. She observed the others’ joy and thrill for a long time, getting closer and backing away. At one point, she asked to hold one, even saying she “needed” one, but when given the opportunity contested, “I don’t want to hold that thing!” Nikki’s experience reminds us that many children, and adults, respond to worms the same way but perhaps it is our job as educators to help children look passed the wetness and slime to know nature better. Supporting Nikki’s knowing let her gain confidence to overcome her initial fear and try something new. Touching and feeling nature means knowing it differently than just seeing or talking about it. Knowing nature allows us to understand.

Our understanding leads us to listen, empathize and know that nature is family.

In this phenomenon, the children began to call the worms “cuties” as a term of endearment. As their love for the worms grew, “a safe place” and “bed” was needed.

Rosie declared that the worms were “a little shy” when they wiggled right out of the children’s hands. The theme Care continued and remained throughout our time in The

Log Playground. Love was an additional theme that emerged. As children listened to one another and nature with empathy, they protected the worms; I was unaware at the time but looking back, I can see how the strands of love, protection and family emerged in this phenomenon. When the worm pooped on Fitz, I remembered that for the children being potty-trained was, perhaps, a recent memory. Experiencing poop and where humans generally put it and then seeing that worms poop too led them to see that nature is similar. Furthermore, Lillian and Nadia also hesitated to know worms. With my care, they could see that worms do not bite and that every experience we are given is meaningful.

192

Figure 10. Nature can be Dead and Alive

Nature can be Dead and Alive was a turning point in our study. Our conversations about nature led the children to see that nature can be dead and alive and that nature breathes. They could often see it without my interruption. When Fitz declared that nature is nature if it used to be alive, he was the teacher. Next, Zeke showed us the life lines of a leaf. Then Fitz continued his thinking about nature breathing which inspired Luis’ to talk us through the seasons of plant life and Lee to talk about his evolution in understanding of worms being dead and alive. Lee reminded us of a time

Midas killed a worm to illustrate that nature can be dead or alive but without caring for it when it is alive, we kill it. Here, the children gained a stronger understanding that Good

& Evil is parallel with the theme of Life & Death and here two phenomena are connected again. This moment was an authentic example of spiral curriculum (Bruner, 1960, p. 52) where one idea emerges and others build upon the previous leading to a greater understanding. In this phenomenon, children found a Criteria for Nature. First, nature

193

moves, breathes and then it dies. With this reality, children understood that if something once breathed, it was nature. Recognizing that nature can be dead and alive allowed children to see that perhaps if nature is alive like us, then it has similar needs. Nature itself was the teacher here with children leading learning. Roles of adults as expert diminished as children’s prior and present knowledge lead the entire punctum.

Figure 11. Nature Likes Children

Knowing that nature can be dead and alive made children wonder how The Log

Playground Tree died. Yoshi immediately described its death and acknowledged that since nature is like us, it must go to Heaven when it dies. Fitz wanted a clearer understanding of how it died which led him to speculate that perhaps worms ate it. Yoshi denied that possibility because worms do not eat wood and they like children. I assumed that Yoshi was perhaps arguing that worms like us and would not kill our favorite place,

The Log Playground Tree. Yoshi’s declaration that worms like us by tickling us leads back to the idea that nature is Family or nature needs relationships.

194

Not only is nature family but it has Needs. When a salamander was discovered in

Nature Likes Children, I reflected on my voiced concern and need to protect this fragile creature differently than the toad. I knew the specialness I attributed to salamanders influenced the children. Luis confirmed my worry by stating how even the salamander was “worried about getting hurt.” Nikki’s kiss led us to know that nature needs care, understanding and family as Luis told us we should only kiss family. Wondering about whether the salamander was Dad, let Nikki describe her views of family roles and let us know her on a deeper level. Also, Carmen’s concern about losing her worm house from the week before told me she was worried about what happened to the worms. Nature needs a home, a biological need. Zeke at the end was accepting The Log Playground

Tree’s death but then considered how it was the home of other nature, perhaps the animals’ ‘tree house.” Reflecting again on Yoshi’s comment about how the tree died “at its hands and feet” reminds me of our delicate care of the salamander and for nature. For the group, the more nature looked like us (eyes, hands and feet), the more we knew it as being the same.

195

Figure 12. We’re All Nature

Each of our experiences in The Log Playground led us to know We’re All Nature.

Rosie summarized our journey by saying, “P, we’re all nature. We breathe two times and poop too and die.” We are brought back to the Criteria of Nature. To be nature, according to the children something must breathe, poop and die. Breathing two times would also capture an earlier idea that nature moves. Again, we see that nature has needs including a cozy bed, a group hug, and a brother. Nature needs the experiences that we need. Nature needs experiences that bring joy and happiness like tickling or hugging.

Nature lets us overcome our fears like touching worms, climbing high or facing a creepy spider. Nature lets us do our work. Nature is our family. Nature is life and we are nature.

Figure 7 shows a culmination of the phenomena together to suggest that when given enough time, children can be(in)nature, and vastly different types of learning happens. The research questions, themes and phenomena of this study are included within the figure to show the distinction of each one, but also the relationships and

196

connections of our co-constructed ideas across the phenomena’s punctum. The circles around the phenomena are different than the boxes around the themes to intentionally identify how the children’s knowledge of these phenomena will change throughout their lives. The lines framing the boxes, however, show how these themes emerged from our study of nature and are unique to us. My research questions guided me with just enough direction to know children and nature differently and ask more questions leading to understandings about classroom experiences versus natural outdoor ones.

Knowing Nature Differently

Literature in Chapter II was revisited to confirm or challenge any existing theories about children in the outdoors. Specifically, barriers, nature’s affordances and loose parts, and Forest School tenets were guiding trends that I considered when reviewing the data and our evolving meanings. The further we traveled from the school, the more the barriers seemed to fade. Without the institutional organization and rules inside the school, we were able to move freely without minding specific schedules and without a fence holding us in a certain space. Rules in the forest were not about climbing up a slide, slowing down on a bike, and cleaning up. Our primary goal was, “If I (teacher) can’t see you, I can’t keep you safe.” Additionally, affordances and loose parts were abundant away from school and although different, it felt like Forest School to us.

Breaking Through Adult Barriers

Addressing the potential barriers to curriculum in natural environments (Dyment,

2005) meant children could spend weeks in the forest while being encouraged to challenge themselves physically and mentally while caring for nature and one another.

197

To reiterate, in Chapter II (p. 28), the barriers may include: (a) Fear and concern for children’s safety; (b) teacher’s confidence in teaching and learning outdoors; (c) school curricula requirements and (d) shortages of time, resources and support. Tess and I chose to study nature with four and five year olds which meant the children had prior experience taking risks outdoors and walking long distances. Also, Tess and I had explored The Log Playground with children in the past which let us have a sense of security with the space and be less concerned about children’s safety. Inviting Tess, our outdoor educator, to accompany us to The Log Playground Tree was one way to address the potential barrier of teacher confidence. I was confident that I could explore nature for long periods of time with children but I lacked confidence in trying to separate my roles as a teacher and researcher. With Tess’s assistance to meet children’s everyday needs, I could capture my own reflections while capturing those of children.

School curricula requirements and shortages of time/resources were two barriers I could address prior to the start of the study. The school’s history of studying nature as an extension of the classroom provided me with the resources to create a strong argument for the study, including examples where I would be meeting the state’s early learning curricula standards. Also, the school’s commitment to family involvement allowed me to communicate with the families, on several occasions, for participation consent and assent with children. Additionally, capturing children’s pre-reflective and reflective responses allowed for the sharing of strong, reportable discoveries of both nature and the skills the children acquired. Having an outdoor educator at our school was a fortunate resource to the study. Her commitment to the study allowed us to involve twelve children co-

198

researchers with confidence to care and research with them while having two uninterrupted hours in nature every week.

Finding Value in Loose Parts

The affordances and loose parts of The Log Playground allowed us to (re)know nature with each experience (Forjortoft, 2001, 2004; Gibson, 1979; Nicholson, 1971;

Niklasson & Sandberg, 2010; Nedovic & Morrissey 2013; Sandseter, 2009). The standing forest, trees and fallen logs, did not change and we knew The Log Playground and The Log Playground Tree as landmarks to travel to. The entrance to The Log

Playground remained the same. The path to The Log Playground tree remained the same.

However, the affordances and loose parts that we discovered each visit often changed.

The unpredictability of nature encouraged an excitement within the group that could not be replicated. The uncertainty of what we would find (worms or salamanders or both), what living things we would discover (a stick that looked like a gun or a pink leaf), what leaves would change or die (the blooming of Pachysandra) could not be predicted. Seven days had passed between our visits which meant many things had the potential to change or change just enough for children to (re)notice them. Furthermore, providing children with opportunities to guide their own paths with(in) nature allowed children to seek out adventure of new things but also revisit old and (re) know them.

Distinguishing between living and non-living loose parts leads to a different understanding about nature’s affordances. The non-living loose parts that led our study of nature as a phenomenon were trees, stumps, branches, twigs, leaves, dirt, mud and tree nuts. Loose parts are defined as being graspable or movable (Nicholson, 1971). While

199

The Log Playground Tree and others were not movable, they provided the most transformative play options from providing a castle for an evil sea witch to a truck for ninja turtles and to a nature bed or tree house for animals. The stumps were places to jump from or places to pound for dissection. The branches, twigs and leaves were movable loose parts that provided unlimited play possibilities from guns, hammers, brew sticks, magic wands and axes to worm food and cozy beds. The living loose parts that children experienced were trees, plants, leaves, insects and amphibians but let us not forget ourselves. The trees and leaves hid us as in Nadia’s epiphany. The plants showed us that not only insects and animals are “alive.” The insects taught us that like humans, insects curl when they are scared and need the same things that we need. Amphibians taught us that the more a living thing looks like us (arms, legs, eyes, mouth), the more protective we are over it. The more relate to it and notice its need for care. Living loose parts provide children with the opportunities to know nature differently to be(in)nature.

Our Forest School

The Log Playground offered a specialized version of Forest School education. To remind the reader, Knight’s (2013) tenets of forest school suggest that Forest School: (1) takes place in a woodland area, with frequent visits, (2) promotes holistic learners who are resilient, confident, independent and creative, (3) supports risk taking appropriate for the environment and student, (4) uses a range of learner-centered processes to create a community for development and learning, and (5) is run by a qualified Forest School

Practitioner. Furthermore, O’Brien (2009) suggested that forest school education leads to an increase in self-confidence, social and communication skills, improves motivation,

200

concentration, knowledge and understanding, and physical motor skills. Visiting The

Log Playground for nine months encouraged enhancement in each of these domains more than I feel I could have supported in the classroom or on the playground. My rationale for this argument contains the acknowledgement of four constraints in the traditional classroom structure in relation to experience in nature:

1. The constraint of four walls. Inside the classroom, children were forced to

move slowly in an organized way, with ultimately less risk-taking, despite their

need to move freely and quicker. Adults are forced to manage their movement to

ensure safety and the respect of others and their space. In nature, speed is not an

issue and children can move freely. However, they learn if they prefer to explore

animals, they need to move slowly and quietly. Adult roles change because there

are less opportunities for unsafe risk taking.

2. The constraint of a structured school day. A consistent schedule with

transitions every thirty to sixty minutes, limited children’s exploration time and

guidance of their own inquiries. In nature, on the basis of ethical listening, there is

a start and end time, ranging from ninety to one hundred twenty minutes with one

transition to reflect before lunch.

3. The constraint of distractions. While children often interrupted each other in

nature, distractions were plentiful in a smaller classroom with less space, furniture

and more children. In nature, distractions are less with more space and are often

purposeful as children call for others to (re)know with them.

201

4. The constraint of limited materials. In the classroom, there was a minimum of

twenty children during any given time and so materials are shared limiting

children’s choice in pursuing individual inquiries. In nature, loose parts, materials

and diverse spaces are abundant and less concern exists about sharing or

negotiating space.

Additionally, I consider our experiences a specialized version of Forest School education because while meeting most of the tenets of Forest School (Knight, 2013), Tess and I were not trained Forest School Practitioners that were certified through the Forest School professional development in the United Kingdom.

Making Sense of Nature: The Double Hermeneutic

Doing phenomenology with children led me to realize the significance of practicing the double hermeneutic method while capturing children’s first encounters with(in) nature. To restate, Smith, Flowers and Larkin (2009) explain the double hermeneutic method as, “the researcher trying to make sense of the participant trying to make sense of what is happening to them” (p.3). As we studied nature as a phenomenon, many of the children may have experienced aspects of nature for the first time. For example, Nikki approached worms despite her angst and fear of them biting. She touched one with one finger for a couple seconds before stating, “I probably don’t like worms.” Later she reflected with a drawing of her hand and a worm describing it as being, “a little bit away.” The video of Nikki’s interactions with nature let me into her experience of fear, hesitation, and desire to belong in the group. Further interpretation led me to wonder about what the next encounters would bring before seeing Nikki

202

notably overcome her fear in a few short weeks and kissing a salamander. My reflection included me feeling proud of her for overcoming initial hesitation and I considered how it was likely that peer pressure from others probably forced her to embrace nature.

Another example was when Midas gently held the spotted salamander, examining its body, before calling it his brother. The others had pleaded with Midas in the past to care for nature and keep it from harm. Over time, Midas was persuaded to approach nature with kindness which gained him notable respect from the group. When Midas desired to hold a salamander of his own, Carmen was hesitant but wanted to include him.

It was as though she knew he needed to, to understand nature. Perhaps to understand her love for nature. When Midas called the salamander his brother, we recognized his growth in understanding and Carmen embraced him with a hug telling him, “You’ll always be my brother.” Caring for that salamander encouraged Carmen to care for Midas despite her frustration in the past. Midas was unaware at the time but later he recognized that the others were encouraging him to care. Trying to make sense of Midas’ and

Carmen’s experience led me to interpret that children understood that like us, nature needs care and compassion.

Practicing the double hermeneutic method with children is unique. As I was trying to make sense of their experiences, in addition to their own reflections, I found myself trusting children more than I do most adults. I wrote in my journal, following

Carmen’s hug, “Children are honest. They don’t hesitate. They tell you what it is and what it’s like, no matter what.” I still feel this way. Reiterating the notion, that the double hermeneutic method is valuable for reflecting on children’s first encounters, I

203

realize the value lies with(in) children’s problem-solving to understand, to question, wonder and know something new. In the pre-reflective moment, children only have the information and knowledge they have encountered thus far. Therefore, when discovering a salamander for the first time, they can use what they know to try to process what it is, what it is like and what it means, alone or with the help of others. Some of the children had experienced salamanders before but not Midas. When given the opportunity, he realized the specialness that the group attributed to the salamander and wanted them to attribute the same for him. Practicing the double hermeneutic method with children in this study meant re(con)ceiving children (Sellers, 2013) for who they were in any given moment while noticing how they learn about the world in the living now and meditated now (van Manen, 2014).

Another sense of double, through pre-reflective and reflective encounters, means moving beyond traditional phenomenology of reflection to show how attempting to understand both, perhaps, means understanding the experiences that lead children to know before reflection occurs. Capturing children’s pre-reflective responses allowed children to review moments of time, as if time stood still, to (re)see their experience, experience it again, and reflect deeply about what it meant in the moment but also what it means now. Children may have felt fear in the moment but could reflect on their confidence and overcome or address those feelings just like they could discover meaning hidden under an experience that they had already forgotten. Capturing children’s pre- reflective and reflective experiences meant children could re(know) nature on their own terms but our archive of recorded experiences let us (re)know together.

204

Nature Wonderings

Videos of children’s pre-reflective experiences with(in) nature were invaluable to our study. These experiences allowed us to (re)see nature as we could watch our interactions as often as needed for meaning-making. Over time, I noticed when the children would reflect using a past experience to help them make new connections and move on quickly to the next inquiry. However, when children encountered a worm or a salamander for the first time, the process changed. I observed children’s hesitation or immediate engagement, I listened as they shared their knowledge and/or wonderings aloud and stood by for support if needed. This difference in learning of children’s first encounters led me to wonder how pre-reflective experiences of three-year-olds might be different. Additionally, I wonder how studying children’s reflective experiences over additional years or follow-up reflection opportunities would offer different knowing.

Teaching Nature

Being and becoming with(in) nature taught the twelve children that they could be(in)nature. In terms of teaching, I had to accept that learning about nature as a phenomenon meant letting go of any written plans and embracing the spontaneity of nature. Allowing children uninterrupted time to explore with(in) nature provided opportunities to lead their own inquiries, while choosing when and how to include others in their learning. Additionally, a specific teaching attitude empowered children to consider their own fears, risk-taking, and hands-on experiences in a natural environment.

Although a pile of Daddy-Long-Legs creeped me out and made me flinch, I hid this view so that children could make decisions for themselves about what it was like. It is a

205

priority that teachers minimalize sharing their own views of nature, especially negative views, if they want children to truly know nature for themselves.

International Quality of Nature

The Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority for their early childhood program serves as a strong model for how the National Association for the

Education of Young Children (NAEYC) in the United States could enhance their program standards to incorporate children’s ongoing connection with nature. One standard, 3.2.1 from the Guide to National Quality Framework (2017) regarding learning environments suggests, “Outdoor and indoor spaces are designed and organized to engage every child in quality experiences in both built and natural environments” (p. 94).

The guidance section for teachers adds that outdoor environments are “not only as places for children to release energy and engage in physical activity but also for exploration, problem solving and creative expression” (p. 95). Previously, the 2013 version of the

Guide to the National Quality Framework suggested that, “Whenever possible, children need opportunities to be outdoors as much as indoors. This can be achieved with well- designed integrated indoor and outdoor environments that are available at the same time”

(p. 89). At my site, I am able to plan that children spend as much times outdoors as indoors. Additions, as mentioned above, to the NAEYC standards may be the first steps in helping early education and care sites support children’s connection to nature.

Since learning standards are developed individually by state in the U. S., it is necessary to address children’s fading connection with nature at the national level. To push the scope further, the program standard could read, “The program’s outdoor

206

environment promotes safe risk-taking and ongoing exploration of the natural world.”

The natural world is diverse based on the immediate environment of each site. If in

Florida, children may explore beaches and sand. If in Alaska, children may explore mountainous terrains. It is necessary that children have the minimum of sixty minutes a day to freely explore their immediate outdoor natural environment without interruption of adults. Adults should properly supervise and offer support when initiated by the child.

While I could argue that sixty minutes is limited, I propose this as a start to address how early education programs in the United States support children’s understanding of nature.

The Force of Being Present with(in) Nature

Nature is alive and so is learning! Unlike the static methods we fall back on indoors and the rules of the playground, we can accept the unpredictable life outside, outside the playground fence and learn. Each time we traveled to the forest, we were unsure what the day would hold for us. We had to trust that nature would provide us with that we needed to know. Nature forced us into a state of being and becoming, knowing and unknowing. As a teacher, I could plan that we would get to know nature. How? what? and when exactly? were plans unknown. I could not predict that children would discover piles of wiggly worms and a bumpy toad or that one fallen tree would show us the ways of life and that nature can be dead and alive. I trusted nature, the children, and myself to just be. I believed the curriculum and research would unfold and we could be(in)nature, in The Log Playground.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

INFORMED CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN A RESEARCH STUDY

209

210

APPENDIX B

INFORMED ASSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN A RESEARCH STUDY

Appendix B

Kent State University Informed Assent to Participate In a Research Study (Script to be read to children prior to interview)

Study Title: Socially Constructing Nature with Children: A Phenomenological Study of Preschooler’s Experiences in a Natural Environment

Principal Investigator: Dr. Janice Kroeger (Dissertation Chair) Co-Investigator: Adonia Porto (Dissertator) Others: Terri Cardy (Outdoor education at the CDC)

Hi, [child's name].

My name is Mrs. Porto and I am trying to learn more about what is important to you in the meadow and how you learn things about nature in our small group.

I would like you to choose a way to share your thinking with me about the meadow. You can choose to draw, make a book, or look at pictures with me or another way if you know of one to tell me about your ideas I will audio record it (show child audio recorder).

Do you want to do this? If the child does not indicate affirmative agreement, we will say “Okay. Thank you anyway. Let me know if you decide later that you would like to come and talk with me. If the child says yes but shows signs of any reluctance, I will remind them that I will not be upset with them if they don’t want to participate.

Do you have any questions before we start? [Clarify if necessary].

If you want to stop at any time just tell me. I will not be upset with you if you say that you want to stop.

212

REFERENCES

213

REFERENCES

Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Carr, M. (2000). Seeking children's perspectives about their learning. In Smith, A.,

Taylor, NJ. & Gollop, M. (Eds). Children's voices: research, policy and practice,

37-55. Auckland: Pearson Education.

Castree N & Braun B (Eds.) (2001) Social Nature: Theory, Practice and Politics. Malden,

MA and Oxford: Blackwell.

Clark, A. (2004). The Mosaic approach and research with young children. In Lewis, V.,

Kellett, M., Robinson, C., Fraser, S., & Dingm S. (Eds). The reality of research

with children and young people, London; Sage.

Clark, A. (2007). A hundred ways of listening, 76-81. Young Children: NAEYC.

Clark, A. & Moss, P. (2008) Listening to young children: the mosaic approach. London,

National Children’s Bureau.

Clark, A. & Moss, P. (2005) Spaces to play: more listening to young children using the

Mosaic approach. London, National Children’s Bureau.

Clements, R. (2004). An investigation of the status of outdoor play. Contemporary Issues

in Early Childhood, 5(1), 68–80.

Comstock, A.B. (1986). Handbook of Nature Study. Cornell University Press.

Copeland, K. A., Kendeigh, C. A., Saelens, B., E., Kalkwarf, H. J., & Sherman, S. N.

(2012). Physical activity in child-care centers: Do teachers hold the key to the

playground? Health Education Research, 27, 81-100.

214

215

Corsaro, W. (1997). The sociology of childhood. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods.

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Dahlberg, G., & Moss, P. (2005). Ethics and politics in early childhood education.

Oxfordshire/New York: Routledge.

Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (2007). Beyond quality in early childhood

education and care: Postmodern perspectives (2nd ed.). London: Falmer Press.

Davies, B. (2014). Listening to children: being and becoming. Albingdon, Oxon:

Routledge.

Demeritt, D (1998). Science, social constructivism and nature. Remaking Reality: Nature

at the Millennium, 173-193, London: Routledge.

Demeritt, D. (2001). Being constructive about nature. In Castree, N. and Braun, B. (Eds)

Social Nature: Theory, practice and politics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). Introduction: the discipline and practice of

qualitative research. The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 4th ed., 1-19.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dowdell, K., Gray, T., & Malone, K. (2011). Nature and its influence on children’s

outdoor play. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 15(2), 24-35.

Dyment, J. & O’Connell, T. (2013). The impact of playground design on play choices

and behaviors of preschool children. Children’s Geographies, 11 (3), 263-280.

Dyment, J. (2005). Green school grounds as sites for outdoor learning: Barriers and

216

opportunities. International Research in Geographical and Environmental

Education, 14(1), 28-45.

Elliot, S., & Davis, J. (2008). Why natural outdoor playspaces. In S. Elliot (Eds.), The

outdoor playspace naturally for children birth to five years, 1–14. Castle Hill,

NSW: Pademelon Press.

Farrell, A. (2005) New possibilities for ethical research with children. In A. Farrell

(Eds.), Ethical research with children. New York: Maidenhead, 176-178.

Finlay, L. (2008). A dance between the reduction and reflexivity: Explicating the

“phenomenological psychological attitude”. Journal of Phenomenological

Psychology, 39, 1-32.

Fjortoft, I. (2004). Landscape as playscape: The effects of natural environments on

children’s play and motor development. Children, Youth and Environments,

14(2), 23-44.

Fjortoft, I. (2001). The natural environment as a playground for children: The impact of

outdoor play activities in pre-primary school children. Early Childhood Education

Journal, 29 (2), 111-117.

Fjortoft, I. and Sageie, J. (2000). The natural environment as a playground for children:

Landscape description and analyses of a natural playscape. Landscape and Urban

Planning, 48, 83-97.

Frost, J. (2006). The dissolution of children’s outdoor play: Causes and consequences. Retrieved

June 25, 2014, from http://cgood.org/assets/attachments/Frost_-_Common_Good_-_

FINAL.pdf.

217

Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton-

Mifflin.

Ginn, F. and Demeritt, D. (2008). Nature: A Contested Concept. In Clifford, N.,

Holloway, S.; Rice, S. and Valentine, G. (2nd Eds.), Key Concepts in Geography

(300-311). London: SAGE.

Graue, E. M. & Walsh, D. J. (1998) Studying children in context: theories, methods and

ethics Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hefts, H. (1998). Affordances of children’s environments: A functional approach to

environmental description.’ Children’s Environments Quarterly, 5(3), 29-37.

James, A. and Prout, A. (1997). Constructing and reconstructing childhood:

contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood. New York, NY: The

Falmer Press.

Kahn, P. and Kellert, S. (2002). Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural and

evolutionary investigations. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.

218

Kellert, S.R., 2002. Experiencing nature: affective, cognitive, and evaluative development

in children. In: Kahn, P and Kellert, S, eds. Children and nature: psychological,

sociocultural and evolutionary investigations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 117–

152.

Knight, S. (Eds.). (2013). International perspectives on forest school: Natural spaces to

play and learn. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.

Kytta, M. (2004). The extent of children’s independent mobility and the number of

actualized affordances as criteria for child friendly environments. Journal of

Environment Psychology, 24, 179–198.

Larimore, R. (2011). Nature-based preschools: A powerful partnership between early

childhood and environmental education. Legacy: National Association for

Interpretation, 9-11.

Little, H., & Eager, D. (2012). Risk, Challenge and safety: implications for play quality

and playground design. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal,

18 (4), 497-513.

219

Little, H., Wyver, S. and Gibson, F. (2011). The influence of play context and adult

attitudes on young children’s physical risk-taking during outdoor play. European

Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 19(1), 113-131.

Little, H. & Wyver, S. (2008). Outdoor play: does avoiding the risks reduce the benefits?

Australian Journal of Early Childhood ,33 (2), 33-40.

Lester, S., & Russell, W. (2010). Children’s right to play: An examination of the

importance of play in the lives of children worldwide (Working Paper No. 57).

The Hague, The Netherlands: Bernard van Leer Foundation. Retrieved from

http://ipaworld.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/BvLF-IPAWorkingPaper-

Childrens-Right-to-Play-Dec2010f.pdf

Lester, S and Maudsley, M (2007) Play, Naturally. London: NCB Lorsbach, A. & Jinks, J. (2013). What early 20th century nature study can teach us.

Journal of Natural History Education and Experience, 7, 7-15.

Louv, R. (2008). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit

disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill.

Louv, R. (2011). The nature principle: human restoration and the end of nature-deficit

disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill.

MacNaughton, G. 2003. Shaping early childhood: Learners, curriculum and contexts.

Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Malaguzzi, L. (1994). History, ideas and basic philosophy. In Edwards, C., Gandini, L.,

Forman, G. (Eds). The Hundred Languages of Children: The Reggio approach to

early childhood education. Norwood, NJ: Abex Publishing.

220

Malaguzzi, L. (1994). Your image of the child: Where teaching begins. Child Care

Information Exchange, 96.

Mawson, B. (2014). Experiencing the ‘wild woods’: The impact of pedagogy on

children’s experience of a natural environment. European Early Childhood

Education Research Journal, 22(4), 513-524.

Maynard, T and Waters, J. (2007). Learning in the outdoor environment: A missed

opportunity. Early Years, 27(3), 255-265.

Merewether, J. and Fleet, A. (2013). Seeking children's perspectives: a respectful layered

research approach, Early Child Development and Care. DOI:

10.1080/03004430.2013.829821

Morrison, G.R. (2008). (8th Eds.) Fundamentals of Early Childhood Education, Pearson.

Moss, P. (Eds.) (2012). Early childhood and compulsory education: reconceptualizing

the relationship. Routledge.

Murray, R. and O’Brien, E. (2005). Such enthusiasm-a joy to see: An evaluation of

Forest School in England. Report to the Forestry Commission by the New

Economics Foundation and Forest Research.

Musker, J., Clements, R., Ashman, H., Menken, A., Auberjonois, R., Barnes, C. D.,

Benson, J., Buena Vista Home Entertainment (Firm). (2006). The little mermaid.

Burbank, CA: Walt Disney Co.

NAEYC. (2012). National Association for the Education of Young Children. Retrieved

from http://www.naeyc.org/

Pica, R. (2008). Learning by leaps and bounds: Why motor skills matter. National

221

Association for the Education of Young Children.

Nedovic, S. Morrissey, A. M. (2013). Calm, active and focused: Children’s responses to

an organic outdoor learning environment. Learning Environments Research, 16,

281-295.

Nicholson, S. (1971). How not to cheat children: The theory of loose parts. Landscape

Architecture 62, (1), 30-34.

Niklasson, L. and Sandberg, A. (2010). Children and the natural environment. European

Early Childhood Research Journal, 18(4), 485-496.

O’Brien, E., & Murray, R. (2006). A marvelous opportunity for children to learn: A

participatory evaluation of Forest School in England and Wales. England:

Forestry Commission.

O’Brien, Liz. (2009). Learning outdoors: the forest school approach. Education, 37(1),

45-60.

Parsons, A. (2011). Young children and nature: Outdoor play and development,

experiences fostering environmental consciousness, and the implications on

playground design. (Unpublished master thesis). Virginia Polytechnic Institute

and State University, Virginia.

Piaget, J. (1952). The Origins of Intelligence in Children. London, UK: Routledge.

Pramling Samuelsson, I. & Johansson, E. (2009). Why do children involve teachers in their play and learning? European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 17(1), 77-94.

222

Rodgers, N., Knowles, Z.; Sayers, J. (2012). Encouraging play in the natural

environment: a child-focused case study of Forest School. Children’s

Geographies, 10(1), 49-65.

Rinaldi, C. (2004). The relationship between documentation and assessment. Innovations

in early childhood education: the international reggio exchange. Merrill-Palmer

Institute: Wayne State University.

Rinaldi, C. (2006). In dialogue with Reggio Emilia: Listening, researching, and learning.

New York, NY: Routledge.

Rivkin, M. (1995). The great outdoors: Restoring children’s right to play outside.

Washingtion DC: NAEYC.

Sandseter, E.B.H. (2009). Affordances for risky play in preschool: The importance of

features in the play environment. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36, 439-

446.

Sellers, M. (2013). Young children becoming curriculum: Deleuze, Te Whariki and

curricular understandings. New York, NY: Routledge.

Shores, K., Scott, D., & Floyd, M. (2006). Constraints to outdoor recreation: A multiple

hierarchy stratification perspective. Leisure Science, 29, 227-246.

Smith, J., Flowers, P. and Larkin, M. (2012). Interpretive phenomenological analysis:

theory, method and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Sobel, D. (2008). Childhood and nature: Design principles for educators. Portland, ME:

Stenhouse.

Spencer, A.M. (2013). Loose parts and learning on the playground. Childcare Exchange,

223

70-71. Exchange Press. DOI: 19460406.

Staempfli, M.B. (2009). Reintroducing adventure into children’s outdoor play

environments. Environment and Behavior, 41 (2), 268–280.

Stan, I, Humberstone, B. (2011). An ethnography of the outdoor classroom-how teachers

manage risk in the outdoors. Ethnography and Education, 6 (2), 213-228.

Stephenson, A. (2003). Physical risk-taking: Dangerous or endangered? Early Years,

3(1), 35-43.

Storli, R., & Hagen, T. L. (2012). Affordances in outdoor environments and children's

physically active play in pre-school . European Early Childhood Education

Research Journal , 18 (4), 445-456.

Taylor, A. (2011). Reconceptualizing the ‘nature’ of childhood. Childhood, 18(4), 420-

433.

Taylor, A. (2013). Reconfiguring the natures of childhood. London: Routledge.

Taylor, A. F. & Kuo, F. E. (2006). Is contact with nature important for healthy child

development? State of the evidence. In C. Spencer and M. Blades (Eds.), Children

and their environments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tovey, H. 2007. Playing outdoors: Spaces and places, risk and challenge. Maidenhead:

McGraw Hill. van Manen, M. (2014). Phenomenology of practice: meaning-giving methods in

phenomenological research and writing. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press,

Inc.

224

van Manen, M. (1990). Researching Lived Experience: Human Science for Action

Sensitive Pedagogy. SUNY Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological

processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Waller, T. (2007). The trampoline tree and the swamp monster with 18 heads: outdoor

play in the foundation stage and foundation phase. Education 3-13, 35(4), 393-

407.

Waller, T. (2006). “Don’t Come Too Close To My Octopus Tree”: Recording and

evaluating young children’s perspectives on outdoor learning. Children, Youth

and Environments 16(2), 75-104.

Waters, J., & Maynard, T. (2012). What's so interesting outside? A study of child-

initiated interaction with teachers in the natural outdoor environment. European

Early Childhood Education Research Journal , 18 (4), 473-483.

Waller, T., & Bitou, A. (2011). Research with children: three challenges for participatory

research in early childhood. European Early Childhood Education Research

Jounral , 19 (1), 5-20.

225

White, R. & Stoecklin, V. (2008). Nurturing children’s biophilia: Developmentally

appropriate environmental education for young children. Retrieved from http://

www.whitehutchinson.com/

Williams, R. 1983: Keywords: a vocabulary of culture and society (second edition).

London: Flamingo.

Woolley, H., Pattacini, L., & Somerset Ward, A., 2009. Children and the natural

environment: experiences, influences and interventions. London: Natural

England.