Early Years Learning in Australian Natural Environments sample

INTRODUCTION

Chapter summary

In this introductory chapter we draw on our stories as shared in the development of this publication and introduce the origins and concept of immersive nature play programs (INPPs). Such programs focus on regularly going beyond early years centre–based programs with young children into natural settings. We consider some initial insights from contemporary research and practice in the provision of INPPs both in Australia and internationally to contextualise this publication. Also, we recognise Australian early years’ contexts and the uniqueness of Australian landscapes as integral to the emergence of INPPs. We elaborate three underpinning text themes—community connections, global sustainability and First Nations People—which may also provide a rationale for developing INPPs. Lastly, we offer an overview of the chapters to follow.

OXFORDUNIVERSITYPRESSSAMPLEONLY

FRAN HUGHES, SUE ELLIOTT, KAREN ANDERSON AND BARBARA CHANCELLOR

Immersive nature play programs

When we initially gathered on the New South Wales coast to write Early Years Learning in Australian Natural Environments, we were inspired by an iconic Australian plant growing nearby, Xanthorrhoea or grass tree. It was reemerging in the local bushland area after recent fires and could only be described as spectacularly present in the landscape. We played with what we knew about the species and the more we researched, the more we felt it connected with the writing we were undertaking to explore immersive nature play programs (INPPs). This is what we now know about Xanthorrhoea:

immersive nature play program (INPP)

A specifically Australian early years play-based program in outdoor environments, typically beyond a centre. Versions are known as beach friends, beach program, bush camp, bush kinder, bush preschool, bush program, bushwalk, forest school, living and learning with Country, nature play, nature school, and outside the gate.

• They are long lived: 200–600 years old. Imagine the stories they could tell!

• After the initial establishment phase, their rate of growth is slow, but varies widely.

• There are more than thirty species, with much diversity of form.

• They are an endemic plant, unique to Australia.

• They grow from a solid base or trunk.

• They readily regenerate and are resilient after damage such as from bushfires.

• The flower spikes are tall and strikingly bold during recognised flowering periods.

OXFORDUNIVERSITYPRESSSAMPLEONLY

• The roots have mutually beneficial relationships with other organisms, such as soil fungi.

• They are integral to plant communities distributed across the Australian landscape.

• The narrow leaves grow strongly outward, creating an emergent space.

• They have many varied traditional cultural uses among First Nations People.

Figure 1.1 Xanthorrhoea or grass tree

Reflecting on these characteristics of the Xanthorrhoea species, we saw many parallels. The long and varied histories of early childhood education, children’s biophilia and connections with First Nations People are the foundations upon which we drafted Early Years Learning in Australian Natural Environments. There is much diversity among INPPs today, but we argue there is uniqueness in the Australian landscape and in these emergent relational learning spaces. We recognise the importance of many community connections and relationships in establishing and growing INPPs; and the dire need for resilience and regeneration in the current Anthropocene epoch, a time of climate crisis. As we explore the emergence of INPPs, we are imagining a new and bold blossoming in early childhood education.

We begin with how to establish an INPP in Australia along with a research-based overview of the benefits of INPP in Chapters 2 and 3. In Chapter 4 we look in more depth at the practical concerns of creating an INPP, particularly for practitioners new to this field. Chapter 5 widens the perspective to consider connections with the local community, one of our three key reasons for engaging children in outdoor learning. We continue to expand the concept of INPPs by inspiring deeper thinking and reflection about INPPs and pedagogy in Chapter 6, and the potential for curriculum innovation in INPPs in Chapter 7. Chapters 8 and 9 reflect and expand in detail on the ways outdoor learning aligns with and enables global sustainability and the inclusion of First Nations People’s perspectives, the other two key integral themes to developing INPPs. Theoretical research provocations are offered in Chapter 10 to both inform and challenge INPP practices, while the case studies in Chapter 11 bring together all of the aspects we have covered.

biophilia

A biological need to affiliate with and feel connected to nature.

Anthropocene

t he Anthropocene epoch is the current time period, during which human activity is having an unprecedented impact on the e arth, an impact being felt intergenerationally and globally. practitioners e arly childhood professionals with varied qualifications who work directly with children in early childhood education services. global sustainability recogni ses the negative human impacts on the e arth and the limits of the e arth’s resources within which the world’s human populations must live for equitable and stable futures for all, including the more than human.

OXFORDUNIVERSITYPRESSSAMPLEONLY

We are aware that other authors have published texts relevant to their landscapes and sociocultural contexts, but it is timely now to create an Australian text that draws on our Australian INPP experiences. All authors have been involved with INPPs for more than ten years across both practitioner and academic roles. The text is a culmination of our experiences and has invited time to pause, reflect and document these journeys. It has been an emergent area to date and we seek, in the words of Davis and Elliott (2003), to make INPPs not ‘marginal but mainstream’. We propose a professionally stimulating building of momentum over the coming years. We hope to inspire practitioners, pre-service teachers, policy creators, community members and academics both in Australia and internationally and anyone interested in connecting children with nature.

Origins and concepts of nature play locally and globally

Forest School

A certified outdoors early years learning program that originated in the united Kingdom, based on d ani sh practice.

Learning in the outdoors is not new internationally. Early childhood education nature programs originated in Scandinavia, Europe and the United Kingdom based on experiential play-based outdoor programs. In Scandinavia, outdoor learning has been practised since the 1950s and the importance of children having contact with nature from an early age has been highlighted (O’Brien & Murray, 2007; Williams-Siegfredsen, 2017). In the United Kingdom, programs can be traced specifically to early years educators from Bridgewater College, Somerset, who visited Denmark to observe nature kindergarten practices (Knight, 2013). The observed practices were adapted into what is now commonly known as Forest School and, since it was established, this approach has increased rapidly and become widely accepted across the United Kingdom. Williams-Siegfredsen (2017) states ‘the term “forest school” was created in England to describe the Danish practice of children in early years’ settings using the outdoors every day, all year round as part of their pre-school education’ (p. 9).

curriculum

In Australia the early childhood curriculum is broadly interpreted as ‘all the interactions, experiences, activities, routines and events, planned and unplanned, that occur in an environment designed to foster children’s learning and development (e YLF )

Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF)

t he national early childhood education curriculum framework that guides the design of programs for children’s learning from birth to five years.

pedagogy

e arly childhood practitioners’ professional teaching and learning practices.

The rise in consciousness of the nature and forest kindergartens in Scandinavia (Williams-Siegfredsen, 2017) and Forest School in the United Kingdom (Knight, 2013) has inspired a growing interest in discovering and exploring the natural outdoors with young children in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan and the United States. In Australia, INPPs gained momentum originating in Victoria, and have now spread to New South Wales and other Australian states and territories (Christiansen et al., 2018; Elliott & Chancellor, 2014).

OXFORDUNIVERSITYPRESSSAMPLEONLY

While there are parallels between European and UK Forest Schools and INPPs, the diverse cultural and historical contexts of early childhood nature programs in Australia are very different and distinct. These unique approaches are supported by First Nations People’s connections to land and the national curriculum policy, Belonging Being Becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia (DEEWR, 2009), known as the Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF). A challenge for practitioners has been to translate and adapt pedagogies and principles from a Forest School approach to the Australian context, both broadly, including culture, environment and educational policies, and more specifically to the local community. As Gambino, Davis and Rowntree (2009) maintain, it is important to caution against taking cultural traditions

and practices from one country to another when they are not a part of that cultural identity. The original Scandinavian movement was aligned to friluftsliv (fresh-air life) (Williams-Siegfredsen, 2017), which is somewhat different from the cultural identity reflected by Australian bush and beach settings (Elliott & Chancellor, 2017), or Ngahere kindergartens in New Zealand (Kelly & White, 2013) or the Forest School of the United Kingdom (Knight, 2013).

Although parallels can be drawn between the international Forest School movement and the Australian bush and beach nature program approaches, the uniqueness of national policy documents suggests a distinctly different phenomenon. For example, Australian INPPs have developed as integral to nationally approved early childhood programs rather than as add-on educational programs (Christiansen et al., 2018).

OXFORDUNIVERSITYPRESSSAMPLEONLY

HUGHES, ELLIOTT, ANDERSON AND CHANCELLOR

Figure 1.2 An open plains environment

Explaining terminology and defining INPPs

commonworlds

An approach that positions nature as encompassing both the human and the more than human (geography, animals, plants), not separated, but actually entangled together.

post-humanist thinking

Post-humanist thinking challenges the idea of humans as exceptional and privileged above the more than human.

anthropocentric hum an-centred thinking that prioritises human values and experiences as intrinsically more important. nature is perceived and valued only in terms of human needs.

relationality

‘o ur li ved relation to other human beings, other living creatures, and to the non-living entities with whom we share our spaces and the planet’ (r itchie, 2013, p. 307).

Firstly, in a physical sense, nature can be wilderness, an urban park, native bushland, a beach, waterways or paddocks, and many such spaces are utilised in Australian INPPs. But views about defining nature are complex (Duhn, Malone & Tesar, 2017; Wals, 1994). They can encompass romanticised or naïve views; realist or brutal views; or perceptions of nature as alternately threatening and appealing. Nature can also appear controllable and subordinate to humans through a lens of human exceptionalism (Barry, 2010). From this position, humans may see themselves as observers or explorers of the natural world and distinctly apart from it (Wilson, 2019). Some portray nature as an objective resource such as trees for timber, totally separate from humans and available for human commodification (Bowers, 2013), while an alternative contemporary view positions nature as encompassing both the human and the more than human (geography, animals, plants), not separated, but actually entangled together. This is termed a commonworlds approach. This approach, informed by post-humanist thinking, offers an alternative view of human–nature relationships and is critical to global sustainability (Wilson, 2019). Many argue anthropocentric or human-centric thinking, which involves being separate from nature and seeing it only as a commodity or resource to serve human needs, has created the Earth’s current climate crisis (Plumwood, 2003). Highlighting the human–nature entanglement can enable us to see more clearly anthropocentric worldviews and reflect on the global sustainability issues that underpin them.

OXFORDUNIVERSITYPRESSSAMPLEONLY

natural/nature settings

w hil e early childhood education services can offer natural settings for play, the focus in this text is on natural settings outside the usual centre-based environment.

For educators, a commonworlds approach invites engagement with new pedagogies to challenge the everyday thinking that humans are separate and simply nature observers, explorers, stewards or exploiters. One early childhood researcher (Harwood, 2019) helps us to shift pedagogical thinking by placing emphasis on relationality and entanglements between the human and the more than human world. For example, Harwood et al. (2020) and Nelson (2018) invite educators to create different pedagogies that extend moral frameworks to consider how life and death relations are framed with young children in natural settings. In particular, Taylor (2013), and

Weldemariam and Wals (2020) argue for a move away from childcentred pedagogies and towards learning within a commonworlds approach. In disrupting child-centred pedagogies, Wilson (2019) asks early childhood educators ‘to consider, instead of learning about nature, thinking with nature’ (p. 29). These views provide some impetus for moving forward in early childhood education for sustainability, beyond merely playing in nature towards development of a commonworlds approach that transcends the binary opposition of nature and humans (Somerville & Williams, 2015).

early childhood education for sustainability

A transformative and empowering participatory process where children and practitioners are together actively engaged in reflecting on and considering sustainability issues and topics.

In Australia, differing terms are used to describe INPPs. In Victoria, a common term is bush kinder. The authors wish to acknowledge that ‘bush kinder’ was first coined in Victoria by Westgarth Kindergarten staff, led by Doug Fargher, to describe their bush parkland program alongside the Yarra River (Grogan & Hughes, 2020). Bush kinder relates specifically to Victoria where before-school three- to five-year-old children’s centre–based education is referred to as ‘ kindergarten’. (Kindergarten is similarly used in Tasmania and Western Australia.) In New South Wales, the Northern Territory, the ACT and South Australia, the term ‘preschool ’ applies for the same age grouping. The diversity of terminology employed in the states and territories was the reason we chose INPP. We also note that in different states and territories, various relevant names have been applied to INPPs including ‘beach friends’, ‘bush/beach program’, ‘bush camp’, ‘bush preschool’, ‘bushwalk’, ‘forest school’, ‘living and learning with Country’, ‘nature play’, ‘nature school’ and ‘outside the gate’. We argue INPP is a sufficiently generic term for application across all jurisdictions, early childhood education services and a diversity of Australian landscapes.

kindergarten t he term used in Queensland, tasmania, Victoria and western Australia for centrebased education for three- to five-year-old children.

preschool

t he term used in the AC t, new s outh wale s, the n orthern terr itory and s outh Australia for centre-based education for three- to five-year-old children.

The parameters for defining INPPs include local places, natural outdoor spaces, outdoor learning in most weather conditions, learning with nature, extended periods of time on a regular basis, child-led play, engagement with local communities, collaboration with First Nations People, entangled places and commonworlds approaches, plus dynamic and changing physical spaces. This definition is informed by the uniqueness of Australia, connection with Country and the fragility of the Australian landscape. We acknowledge that every program will be unique, in response to local geography and community. Although we recognise there are excellent outdoor spaces in centres, Early Years Learning in Australian Natural Environments focuses primarily on going beyond this space as part of an overarching centre philosophy.

OXFORDUNIVERSITYPRESSSAMPLEONLY

The Australian early years context and INPPs

National Quality Standard (NQS)

A national quality benchmark for early childhood education and care in Australia employed in the assessment and rating of services.

National Quality Framework (NQF)

OXFORDUNIVERSITYPRESSSAMPLEONLY

A national approach to regulation, assessment and quality improvement for early childhood education and care in Australia inclusive of the e YLF and n Q s

In Australia, the introduction of the National Quality Standard (NQS) in 2012 (ACECQA, n.d.) and the EYLF as part of the National Quality Framework (NQF) (ACECQA, 2020c) has renewed a focus on outdoor learning environments. These policies direct particular attention to children experiencing play in natural environments, education for sustainability and opportunities for calculated risktaking in nature play. Alongside the NQS, there is a recognised need for information that specifically deals with outdoor natural learning environments, including those that take children beyond the service’s boundaries. As there is limited Australian literature in this area, we anticipate publications such as this book will assist pre-service and in-service practitioners to develop an INPP and experience how children can play and learn in natural bush and beach environments.

Unlike Forest School in the United Kingdom and Canada, where there is an absence of minimum teaching qualifications, practitioners

Figure 1.3 A rock environment

in Australian INPPs all hold a specialised early childhood qualification, including a Certificate III or diploma for teaching early childhood education and care programs, or a bachelor or master’s degree in early childhood education. A practitioner’s personal values and beliefs, informal professional sharing and geographic circumstances are supported by their qualifications. As Australian INPPs are conducted parallel to an educational program, mandated to consider the approved national learning framework and aligned with the service’s philosophy, specialised training is not required (Christiansen et al., 2018). The Australian tertiary sector in general has not had a strong focus on outdoor play and nature pedagogy, but there are signs that institutions are alert to its potential (Grogan & Hughes, 2020).

early childhood education and care programs

d ev eloped by qualified practitioners to promote the learning and development of children aged birth to five years in a range of nationally approved settings including preschools, long day-care centres and family day care.

nature pedagogy

Currently, there are two professional learning programs relating specifically to INPPs being delivered in the not-for-profit sector. The Early Years Bush Connections program has been delivered since 2013 through technical and further education (TAFE) institutions in New South Wales, and the Early Childhood Outdoor Learning Network training package has been implemented since 2018 (refer to Chapter 2 for further information about these). These Australian professional learning programs offer critical reflection and guidance around engaging with nature programs for early childhood education practitioners. There are a number of commercial providers of nature play programs in Australia, which often appear associated with the Forest School approach. As McCree (2019) argues, the original Forest School is a distinct and unique approach. The Australianbased programs are distinctly different from the international Forest Schools, where training is centralised and includes ‘the adoption of a set of codified practices’ (Christiansen et al., 2018, p. 64). Both Canadian and UK Forest School associations appear to determine the practices and specify Forest School certified training as essential to conduct a program. This top-down approach is in direct contrast to the bottom-up approaches currently evident in Australia, which are led by inspired and well-qualified practitioners who engage with professional networks in the field. In Australia, we are building on what has been done overseas and translating that to what is appropriate to the local landscape, community, First Nations People’s perspectives, the flora and fauna, the guiding policies and practitioner qualifications.

Pedagogies employed when in natural environments with children that place nature central to children’s learning and promote responsiveness to the dynamics and diversity of natural environments.

critical reflection

d raw ing on a range of perspectives and theories to question and critically examine our values, beliefs and practices as well as consider implications for practice.

OXFORDUNIVERSITYPRESSSAMPLEONLY

Lastly, there is no single type of provision for INPPs in Australia. Each service varies in its geographical setting and the people involved (see Chapter 11). Services offering INPPs might include preschools and kindergartens, long day-care centres (for children from birth to five years old), playgroups (birth to five years), family day care

(birth to twelve years), primary schools and out-of-school-hours children’s services (six to twelve years). These services are situated under various policy directives and jurisdictions, and in remote and differing locations across Australia. Early Years Learning in Australian Natural Enviroments focuses on programs for children from birth to five years of age.

Education services are located in all areas of Australia, delivering programs in diverse and often harsh environments, from tablelands and mountain ranges to coastal areas and river valleys, from bushlands to grasslands and wide open spaces, from deserts to wetlands and tropical and subtropical rainforests, in weather that brings snow, drought, floods, storms, hail, rain, sun and wind. The fauna and flora of Australia are also unique, with many species—platypuses, kangaroos, emus, koalas, echidnas, possums, wombats, frogs and insects—not found anywhere else in the world. The flora, such as the ubiquitous eucalypts and acacias, are well adapted to dry conditions and poor soils, but some plants—native orchids and other wildflowers, ferns, grasses and fungi—are sensitive and varied, thus it is important to understand local ecologies when exploring natural environments.

There is also diversity within communities that require early childhood education services to create programs that best suit the children and families accessing services. First Nations People have inhabited this country for tens of thousands of years, while, since eighteenth-century English colonisation, Australia has become a much more ethnically diverse community. Each new population group brings its cultural beliefs, practices and experiences and this may influence the educational choices made for its children. In particular, the involvement of First Nations children in educational

OXFORDUNIVERSITYPRESSSAMPLEONLY

The unique and diverse landscape of Australia

Figure 1.4 A park environment

services is lower than for non-Indigenous populations (Commonwealth of Australia Joint Council on Closing the Gap, 2020). The embedding of First Nations People’s perspectives can promote culturally safe environments where worldviews are shared to inform future generations of non-Indigenous Australians. When First Nations People sense their culture is recognised and can see their cultures reflected in an educational setting, they may be more likely to enrol their children (Sinclair, 2018).

First Nations People have very strong connections with the Land, and early childhood services can be guided by and learn from their knowledges when connecting children with Country. As the climate changes, affecting societies across the world, it is important to acknowledge and understand that unsustainable behaviours and actions in one space ripple out across the world. Early childhood communities, including children, can be agents of change for globally sustainable futures for all.

Taking into consideration the unique and diverse landscapes of Australia and the varied children’s programs offered, there is not one way to develop an INPP that fits all. Development will be guided by and depend on the geography, flora and fauna of the physical space; the local community; and the knowledge and experience of the practitioners delivering the programs.

OXFORDUNIVERSITYPRESSSAMPLEONLY

Figure 1.5 A eucalypt bushland environment

Overview

During initial discussions about this text we were repeatedly drawn to three underlying themes based on our shared experiences and the research available about Australian INPPs. We briefly raise these themes here, but invite readers to explore the chapter devoted to each theme. These themes are potentially integral to the rationale for developing an INPP.

Connecting with the local community, elaborated on in Chapter 5, is well supported by long-standing Australian policies including the EYLF and the NQS, which recognise the role of early childhood education services in the wider community. There are significant benefits for practitioners, children and families when community relationships and partnerships are fostered (Arthur et al., 2021). INPPs offer a different and new avenue for building relationships and partnerships; this was evident in the first Australian study of an INPP (Elliott & Chancellor, 2014) and is illustrated by the case studies reported in Chapter 11. Not only is learning enhanced for the early childhood community, but practitioners can strengthen and extend their professional identities and skills by relating to those in the wider community beyond the sphere of early childhood education. Further support for community connection can be garnered from shifting images of children, where children are viewed as capable and active community members with democratic rights to be heard (Corsaro, 2005; Malaguzzi, 1994; UNICEF, 1989). Having children and their practitioners out and about in their local communities and natural environments offers positive outcomes on many levels.

OXFORDUNIVERSITYPRESSSAMPLEONLY

In Chapter 8, addressing urgent global sustainability concerns through education for sustainability is the focus theme. Australia has been a leading country in early childhood education for sustainability practice (Davis, 2015; Elliott, 2014) and research (Elliott, Ärlemalm-Hagsér & Davis, 2020) over many years. The international nature play movement, including INPPs, has created a perceived sustainability–nature nexus (Elliott, 2017). We argue some practitioners may default to nature play as the principal way to deal with sustainability without deeper consideration of ecocentric worldviews, contemporary commonworlds theorising or critical eco-pedagogies (Elliott & Young, 2015). International reports highlight the urgency of tackling global climate change and the impacts for children (IPCC, 2018; WHO, 2017a, b), while policies such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) signal ways forward (UNESCO, 2017). All of this provides a compelling rationale for education for sustainablity to be central to INPP policy and practice, the intent being to cultivate ethical sustainable worldviews with children and families.

In Chapter 9, we recognise learning about First Nations People as a key theme and a requirement of the NQF. The significance of First Nations People’s continuous

connections with and nurturing of the land supports the inclusion and prioritising of this theme. Learning about the stories of Country brings a great depth to both the practitioner’s and children’s learning. At the heart of this theme is the importance of respectful relationships with each other, the land, skies, waterways, plants and animals. Examples of these relationships and practices are shared in Chapter 9 by a non-Indigneous person and Gamilaroi and Yularoi woman Priscilla Reid-Loynes. These three themes underpin the rest of Early Years Learning in Australian Natural Environments, from our intitial chapters inviting practitioners and others new to this field to specifically consider ‘Why go beyond the service’ and ‘How to establish an INPP’. We anticipate these early chapters will provoke comprehensive reflections about why and how, beyond simplistically thinking ‘What a great idea, let’s do it’. Chapter 3 offers a summary of INPP research to date including the benefits of such programs, providing the evidence base on which programs can be grounded. For more experienced INPP practitioners, Chapter 6 we hope inspires deeper thinking and critical reflection about INPPs and pedagogy. Despite the relatively short history of INPPs in Australia since 2011, our shared experience indicates that both INPPs and practitioners evolve and change in significant ways over time. We strongly encourage critically reflective thinking and practice alongside exploration of this chapter and the three key theme chapters previously outlined.

In addition, Chapters 7 and 10 may extend readers further in two important areas, curriculum and research. In Chapter 7, we reflect on curriculum and notions of co-constructed curriculum as fundamental to the learning, based on child-led play, that defines INPPs. There is much to consider around novel relationalities; for example, how nature has agency in the co-construction of curriculum and how curriculum cross-pollinations occur between service-based programs and INPPs. In Chapter 10 we invite all readers, but in particular those with academic research interests, to

OXFORDUNIVERSITYPRESSSAMPLEONLY

co-construction w her e learning takes place as children, practitioners and nature interact with each other in partnership.

child-led play

Children’s ideas and interests lead the play where children are viewed as participants. t his approach acknowledges children’s agency and views children as competent and capable.

Figure 1.6 A beach environment

consider engaging in studies to build Australian INPP research. Some starting points are offered from current research literature and there are many avenues to explore in this emergent field.

Lastly, all aspects of this book are reflected in the case studies collated in Chapter 11. We have purposefully selected a range of case studies to illustrate the breadth of possibilities across state jurisdictions, geographies, urban and rural locations and service types. We see much potential in expanding these case studies in future to establish a more comprehensive overview of the inspired practitioner-led innovations in INPPs.

OXFORDUNIVERSITYPRESSSAMPLEONLY

Conclusion

Australian INPPs are a unique interpretation of the nature kindergartens and forest preschools of Scandinavia and the United Kingdom. We have chosen to employ the term INPP, which has potential for wide-ranging generic usage across Australia. The Australian context is supported by the national policy documents. There is not a ‘one way fits all approach’ as each INPP differs according to the geography and landscape, the community, First Nations People’s perspectives, the local flora and fauna, the knowledge and experience of the practitioners and their views on global sustainability. The potential for INPPs in Australia is exciting, and the time is right to provide children with a range of different immersive nature experiences integral to Australian landscapes and sociocultural contexts.

Figure 1.7 A creek environment

reFL eC t IV e Ques t Ions

1 What term do you most commonly associate with children’s nature play programs and why?

2 What do you know about the origins of INPPs?

3 How are INPPs supported by the NQF (ACECQA, 2020c)?

4 What do you consider makes Australia unique in terms of INPPs?

5 In what ways do you consider the themes of community connections, global sustainability and First Nations People are interconnected?

F urther re A dInG

Elliott, S. & Chancellor, B. (2017). Beyond the fence: Exploring forest preschool/ school approaches in Australia. In H. Little, S. Elliott & S. Wyver (eds). Outdoor Learning Environments: Spaces for exploration, discovery and risk-taking in the early years (pp. 243–61). Allen & Unwin: Sydney.

Giugni, M. & Mundine, K. (2010). Talkin’ Up and Speakin’ Out. Pademelon Press: Jamberoo, New South Wales.

Kelly, J. & White, J. (2013). The Ngahere Project: Teaching and learning possibilities in nature settings. www.waikato.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/146176/ Ngahere-project_3-2013-03-14.pdf

Knight, S. (ed) (2013). International Perspectives on Forest School. Sage: Los Angeles, CA.

OXFORDUNIVERSITYPRESSSAMPLEONLY