Finnish student teachers’ ideas of outdoor learning

ABSTRACT

A reformed national curriculum has introduced transformative and sociocultural learning elements to the Finnish education system. In addition, sustainability and outdoor education remain pressing issues for Finnish educators. We conducted a content analysis of the views of outdoor education held by student teachers enrolled in first-year sustainability and outdoor education courses in Finland (n = 46). The goal was to identify the learning environments and pedagogical ideas of student teachers. The student teachers emphasised the role of nature in outdoor education and identified locality as an important learning environment. Their surrounding environments included both built and unbuilt environments. The teaching methods they wrote were appropriate outdoor education, active learning, participatory learning, making observations and multidisciplinary learning especially for sustainability issues. Notably, technology and digitalisation were not emphasised in the results. Overall, the student teachers had a strong preliminary knowledge of outdoor learning spaces and clear visions for conducting outdoor education.

KEYWORDS:

• Outdoor education
• sustainability
• student teacher’ ideas
• learning environment
• finnish core curriculum

Introduction

Outdoor education is an important topic for Finnish educators, as there is a great need for outdoor activities at schools and in teacher education programs. In the fall of 2016, the Finnish national curriculum underwent reform (Finnish National Board of Education, 2014), and this has brought transformative elements for outdoor learning to compulsory education. Among other things, the reform emphasised student agency, participation, sustainability, learning outside the classroom and digital learning. Consequently, outdoor learning is need to incorporate in schools and teacher education programs.

Compared to past curriculums, the new curriculum strongly promotes cross-curricular themes, meaning that all subject-specific lessons must feature interdisciplinary topics. Students require different knowledge bases and skills to study their coursework, prepare for their future careers and maintain their active citizenships. Moreover, to be successful, they must also be able to combine different topics and tasks. Following the national curriculum, each school subject contributes to the development of broad-based skills.

When students study a topic like sustainable development, they combine different subjects to create a holistic viewpoint of a given sustainability issue. This revised pedagogical approach, known as phenomenon-based learning, is also implemented outside of schools (e.g. Lonka, 2018; Silander, 2015; Symeonidis & Schwarz, 2016). For example, pupils may learn about circular economy in collaboration with a local recycling centre. Ultimately, phenomenon-based learning allows for the information and skills learned to be applied to different topics and real-world problems, including those outside the classroom (Sahlberg, 2015). As a pedagogical approach, outdoor learning promotes holistic and experiential learning and enables the integration of knowledge and skills from a range of disciplines (Lugg, 2007).

The present study focuses on student teachers’ ideas of outdoor education that support phenomenon-based learning. It is unclear how outdoor education development in Finland should incorporate the changes to the national curriculum that support phenomenon-based learning. In this study, student teachers (=46) in a sustainability and outdoor education master’s program were surveyed on their preliminary ideas of outdoor education. Because this study is interested in the content of these ideas rather than how they develop during the program, the student teachers were approached before their sustainability and outdoor education studies had begun. The present study aims to seek answers for the following research question:

1. What ideas student teachers have for the learning environments and pedagogical aspects of outdoor learning?

Rather than identifying generalisations, typical features or cause-effect relationships, the study aims to describe phenomena and make new observations. The data were gathered to develop and build a new study program and curriculum based on the student teachers’ ideas. This approach follows the student-centred pedagogical model (e.g. Wright, 2011), in which students can actively collaborate, analyse and evaluate their own learning and their interactions with their supervisors within the study program (Lehesvuori, Ratinen, Kulhomäki, Lappi, & Viiri, 2011).

Outdoor education

A basic definition for outdoor education is ‘education in, about and for the outdoors’ (Donaldson & Donaldson, 1958, p. 17). Outdoor education is a holistic form of education with the goal of enhancing the overall well-being of children and adolescents, including their academic, physical, emotional, social and psychological well-being (Harun & Salamuddin, 2014).

Overlaps exist between the fields of outdoor education, outdoor studies and outdoor learning (Prince, 2016, p. 7). As outlined by Prince (2016), outdoor studies, which includes outdoor education, is a young, emerging discipline with interdisciplinary characteristics. Humberstone, Prince, and Henderson (2016) have stated that outdoor studies ‘fruitfully encompasses a broad range of approaches, foci and methods such as, but not limited to, experiential learning, adventure education, organised camps, environmental education, nature-based sport and wilderness therapy’ (p. 2).

According to Rickinson et al. (2004), ‘the concept of “outdoor learning” is a broad and complex one, which touches on a wide range of educational activities in many different settings’ (p. 15). For example, outdoor adventure education, field studies, nature studies, outdoor play, heritage education, environmental education, experiential education and agricultural education all fall under this concept (Rickinson et al., 2004). At the most basic level, outdoor learning refers to learning that takes place outdoors.

Similarly, out-of-school learning refers to learning outside of traditional school settings (Resnick, 1987). It is part of a broad field that intersects with environmental education, adventure education, nature tourism and outdoor recreation (Gilbertson, Bates, McLaughlin, & Ewert, 2006).

The learning environment in outdoor education

Nowadays the learning environment has extended from in-school settings to out-of-school settings (Hansen Sandseter & Hagen, 2016; Prince, 2016). This study uses this learning environment definition for elementary schools: ‘Learning environments refer to spaces and places, as well as communities and practices, where studying and learning take place’ (Finnish National Board of Education, 2014, p. 27).

The interactive learning environments found in outdoor learning overlap one another. To analyse these environments, we apply Fägerstam’s (2012) three dimensions of learning: cognitive, emotional and social. Each type of learning environment—physical, psychological and social, and pedagogical—applies these three dimensions in a different way.

The physical learning environment depicts a space or place where learning (cognition) occurs. Nowadays, the physical learning environment can either be real or technologically based on a virtual reality. In outdoor education, the primary learning environments, such as museums and forests, are real, although ICT is commonly incorporated into them.

The psychological and social learning environment describes the interactions and activities between pupils, teachers and parents. It also reflects school culture, school values and the different affections and emotions held by learners. The sociocultural viewpoint (e.g. Woolfolk, 2012) in outdoor education presents learning as a social process (Fägerstam, 2014).

The pedagogical learning environment refers to the pedagogical solutions that support formal and informal learning. According to Krokfors, Kangas, Vitikka, and Mylläri (2010), co-operation between actors inside and outside of the school is important. For example, a museum visit is a good informal learning environment if a school teacher can design a workshop for their students together with a museum staff member. In this workshop, the learners should take an active role during the learning process.

The pedagogy of outdoor education

Following Dahlgren and Szczepanski (1998), outdoor education uses outdoor experiences to help students learn about the relationships between nature, culture and society. Thus, outdoor pedagogy promotes holistic and interdisciplinary student development by improving their cognitive skills and allowing them to interact with natural and human environments. This holistic approach is derived from phenomenon-based learning, which is valuable for both individual students and society as a whole. Francis, Breland, Østergaard, Lieblein, and Morse (2013) found that students has been a strong foundation for responsible action due to phenomenon-based agroecology. Phenomenon-based teaching and learning is grounded in a constructivist epistemology, which is fundamental in sociocultural learning theory (Symeonidis & Schwarz, 2016).

Sociocultural outdoor teaching and learning promotes the use of multiple perspectives, authentic problem-solving activities, real-world environments, inquiry learning and scaffolding. Notably, outdoor learning is mediated and controlled by the learner, who constructs knowledge during a process facilitated by the teacher. The teacher guides and organises the learning process rather than strictly providing knowledge (see Banchi & Bell, 2008).

Students participating in inquiry-based courses have reportedly achieved better learning outcomes than those in traditional courses (Akkus, Gunelb, & Handc, 2007; Minner, Levy, & Century, 2010; Ratinen, 2016). Because phenomenon-based learning follows an inquiry-based pedagogy, it may have notable educational benefits for outdoor learning methods. Following a phenomenon-based learning approach, a teacher or student first provides questions or problems about a given phenomenon. The students then collaboratively develop solutions to these questions or problems (Lehesvuori et al., 2011). As the phenomena under consideration in outdoor education widely varies, the resulting studies can range from experimental adventures to scientific research projects. Overall, phenomenon-based outdoor education is learner-centred, and the theories studied by the students relate to practical situations and/or phenomena. In the phenomenon-based learning process, the teachers are facilitators of learning tasks, and they help their students to deal with a problem that the students themselves have identified (Silander, 2015).

Materials and methods

This qualitative case study targeted a teacher education program that focused on sustainability and outdoor learning. The student teachers were surveyed using a qualitative exploratory approach developed by Yin (2017). The data were collected at the beginning of the students’ studies (25 ECTS). Because they only took general studies in teacher education, none of the student teachers had practical professional experience. The ultimate objective of the study was to gather the students’ suggestions, their initial visions of outdoor education to develop programme. In developing this student-centred pedagogical model, the participants collaborated actively with teachers in analysing and evaluating their own learning.

Data were collected via an open-ended questionnaire. Students wrote their answers for the open questions which covered their ideas about outdoor learning and expanded learning environments:

1. What do you think outdoor education should be at school (activities and contents)?

2. What kind of out-of-school learning environments or learning spaces are?

We used stratified sampling and excluded student teachers from other degree programs. The questionnaire was emailed to all 51 student teachers pursuing a master’s degree in Sustainability and Outdoor Education. The questionnaire was returned by 46 respondents (90%), including both female (=35) and male (=11) students. The length of student teachers’ answers varied from a few concepts to an answer of about 100 words.

Data-driven content analysis (see Stemler, 2001) was conducted with data-based categorisation. This study reveals student teachers’ ideas and does not search gender differences. First, the students’ responses were read through, the themes were collected and then the responses were categorised. For example, the following student response would be placed in the ‘learning environment’ category: ‘Outdoor education courses should precisely instruct on how to use different learning environments’. The three researchers created the categories in collaboration with each other. Second, the researchers divided their three categories into sub-categories. Triangulation validated the inductively created categories that emerged from the data. Following research ethics, we anonymised the data. Moreover, the students were informed about the questionnaire’s purpose as both an aid to improve the curriculum and a tool for gathering research materials. By request, the students were removed from this study’s materials.

Results

While the student teachers’ perspectives varied, the data analysis identified three categories that their responses could generally be divided into: i) learning environment, ii) pedagogical activities and iii) interdisciplinary learning. The data are exhibited in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3, respectively. These topics are crucial to the Finnish national curriculum, which extends the concept of the learning environment outside the school. In addition to the classroom, learning environments increasingly double as outdoor environments, such as when students learn in nature or visit museums. The development of pedagogical activities is guided by the principles of diverse interactive pedagogies. This means that schoolwork utilises systematically different pedagogies that create space for experimentation, exploration, functionality, movement and play. The curriculum also emphasises interdisciplinary learning and cross-curricular competence in the teaching of school subjects.

Table 1. Student teachers’ ideas of learning environment of outdoor education.

Learning Environment	N
Informal learning environments: museums, science centres, school facilities, corridors, library, excursion	65
Nature: field and park, mire, river, wilderness	51
Surrounding: nearby forest, school yard, garden	31
Non-formal learning environments: bus, factory, city hall, rest home, swimming hall, beach, internet, movies	36
Total	183

Table 2. Student teachers’ ideas of pedagogical activities of outdoor education.

Pedagogical Activity	N
Pupil-centred learning: group work, inquiry, playful learning	13
Practical orientation: hiking, trip, gardening, camp fire, species identification	17
Locality: nearby nature, place, nature into classroom	9
Experiential: experiment, positivity	7
Presence in nature and relaxing	11
Total	57

Table 3. Student teachers’ ideas of interdisciplinary learning of outdoor education.

Interdisciplinary learning	N
Interdisciplinary subjects	12
Permeable outdoor education	6
Sustainability: climate change, relationship with nature, values, recycling, sustainable development	19
Total	37

The learning environment in outdoor education

The student teachers were more concerned with the learning environment’s role in outdoor education than any other topic (Table 1). This result is in line with Symeonidis and Schwarz (2016), who pointed out that learning environments and various working methods direct how students learn about and demonstrate their competencies. The results are also aligned with the goals of the national curriculum.

Student teachers identified the learning environment as a core issue, and this topic was referenced the most in the data. According to the student teachers, the main spaces for learning outdoors were informal out-of-school settings, museums and science centres but also other non-formal learning environment such as factories, swimming hall and internet. As Kangas (2010) emphasised, the learning environment is now a playful learning environment that combines digitalization both in the classroom and outdoors. According to the student teachers, the digitalized learning environment was not important learning environment for outdoor learning. Unfortunately, the reason behind this opinion could not be isolated during data analysis. Instead, they emphasised that nature as parks and surroundings such as forest close to school are the noteworthy place to learn in outdoor. One student teacher highlighted courage as the primary factor influencing the use of out-of-school settings.

Teachers should courageously explore the surrounding environment with their pupils and use all the opportunities there for learning. (Student 23)

Another student teacher addressed the fundamental role of learning environments in outdoor learning. Overall, students knew that in outdoor education different learning environment should use purposeful way as following citation indicates.

Outdoor education courses should precisely instruct on how to use different learning environments. (Student 38)

In outdoor education, a real environment, rather than a traditional classroom, is considered to be an authentic learning environment (Symeonidis & Schwarz, 2016). Herrington and Herrington (2007) portrayed the authentic learning environment as student-centred, realistic and effective, and these specifications were well represented in the student teachers’ ideas.

Some student teachers emphasised thatinformal learning processes and outdoor learning environments merge together as is disclosed in the following citation.

I would basically respond, ‘All the world outside of school.’ Both the forest and the city offer numerous ways to learn important things for the future. (Student 30)

Also, the role of learners in defining the learning environment was common as the following quote indicates.

Learning is done far beyond the school, and one of the best learning facilities may appear by the porridge in the evening. I do not limit learning environments to certain locations because learning environments and learning spaces can appear everywhere that the learners are. (Student 21)

Since the days of Donaldson and Donaldson (1958), informal learning has been the key concept of outdoor education, and it is also a common concept in the Finnish national curriculum. The student teachers’ ideas of learning environments are similarly versatile to those described by Krokfors et al. (2010) in their InnoSchool projects. In these projects similarly with the present study, the informal learning environments included libraries, museums and science centres, among others. Moreover, the student teachers seemed to apply a phenomenon-based learning approach to their ideas of learning environments. Namely, in phenomenon-based learning, the phenomenon is either something that is experienced or something that appears or is realised through experiences in different learning environments. The following citation reveals how versatilely student teachers defined the outdoor learning environment.

Parks, forests, swamps, museums, workplaces and even a swimming pool near the school. Almost any place could be suitable as a learning environment because different places have their own information that can be taught to students. The space can be viewed by its vegetation, laws of physics, etc. (Student 18)

Therefore, some student teachers thought the place where instruction happen have a ‘story’ which is uncovered via students’ experiences as following citation underpins.

Nature itself. Science centers and museums. Interesting historical sites. Different workspaces where, in theory, the thing to be learned comes to life. (Student 41)

The pedagogical activities of outdoor education

The starting point of both phenomenal-based learning (Østergaard, Lieblein, Bredland, & Francis, 2010) and outdoor learning (Telemäki, 1998) is the belief that experiences are more important to learning than conceptual understanding and that learners should have more experiential rather than rational relationships with phenomena. While phenomenon-based learning methods vary, the learning objectives seek to develop important skills, especially processing, interaction and teamwork skills. In the present study the need for pedagogical activities is highlighted in the student teachers’ answers (Table 2). Pedagogical activities refer to the teachers’ efforts to help their students learn (Finnish National Board of Education, 2014).

According to Lonka, Hietajärvi, Makkonen, Sandström, and Vaara (2015), phenomenon-based learning consciously modifies everyday concepts and thus promotes a scientific and holistic worldview. The phenomenon is optimal for learning when it is versatile enough to meet the learning objectives and can be viewed using different disciplines (Lonka et al., 2015). Some of the student teachers’ reported teaching methods, didactics, subject contents, learning philosophies and pedagogical understandings were connected to a phenomenon-based approach. Many student teachers stressed the meaning of pedagogical activities and the content of outdoor learning processes. Similar to Krokfors (2010) and Kangas (2010), some student teachers insisted that learning should be active, experiential, playful and tangible, which means allowing for their students to explore authentic surroundings. One student teacher reported the following belief:

The teacher handles the subject being taught from the children’s perspective by playing, doing, exploring, taking the subjects into nature or bringing nature into the classroom. (Student 34)

Most student teachers who addressed pedagogical activities also emphasised pupil-centred learning. Self-directed learning (SDL) is a subject of debate in Finland (e.g. Sormunen, 2019). Knowles (1975), who was cited in Boyer, Edmondson, Artis, and Fleming (2014), described SDL as a process in which a learner takes the initiative, with or without others, to identify his or her learning needs, define his or her learning objectives, acquire human and material learning resources, select and implement appropriate learning strategies and evaluate his or her learning outcomes. SDL is closely related to outdoor education, which support the development of self-efficacy. In outdoor education, self-efficacy refers to an individual’s belief in his or her own abilities. Its positive benefit can be lost soon after education, as Scrutton (2015) observed in his study of learners’ abilities to elicit personal and social development during outdoor education. However, Boyer et al. (2014) argued in their meta-analysis that ‘students noted that the SDL project improved their confidence and ability. In this way, implementing SDL may help students improve their self-efficacy’ (p. 27). It should be noted that several SDL theories have been developed in the context of adult education, which is why they are not easily applied to children and adolescents.

Student teachers also mentioned pedagogical practises such as hiking, small distance trip and practical work e.g. plant identification. Not only the nature but also built environment offers the learning environment where can be used versatile pedagogy as following citation indicates.

Observe ditches and buildings, etc., and think about the effects of each on nature. Observation and discussion are key, but you can also do group work based on the observations (E.g. What kind of rubbish seems to be generated the most? Where does it come from? (Student 18)

Therefore, student teachers’ ideas of the pedagogy of outdoor education overlap the ideas that Humberstone et al. (2016) presented. In the data, locality refers to an individual’s knowledge and consciousness of his or her own place, and this emphasis on locality means that local places are significant learning environments for the student teachers. Such learning environments emphasise experiential and learning by doing as shown in the following quote.

Experiential, learning by doing. Pupils could, for example, grow lettuce and so on. Also, taking into account a variety of learners, not focusing solely on PP slides (PowerPoint slides) and school books. Moreover, creative, and each teacher conducts it (outdoor education) using his or her own expertise. (Student 18)

There were indications that the student teachers associated environmental issues with outdoor education. As Palmberg and Kuru (2000) identified, outdoor education activities can effectively stimulate environmental education. Namely, students can study and experience nature while also learning action strategies to protect it. Auer (2008) argued that learners’ sensitivity towards the environment appears to enable other learning objectives, including the normative and advocacy-oriented dimensions of environmental education. In outdoor education it is possible to develop through experiential learning learners’ sensitivity.

The interdisciplinary learning of outdoor education

According to Lugg (2007), outdoor education offers a holistic, experiential, interdisciplinary approach, and it can also be used for sustainability education. When following an interdisciplinary learning approach, learning about the themes or phenomena occurs from a wide perspective. In this study, interdisciplinary learning was emphasised in several student teachers’ responses. (Table 3).

The student teachers proposed that teaching outdoors should be interdisciplinary, feature intersecting subjects, include aspects of sustainability and act as a starting point for schoolwork. Following citation reveals how outdoor education enables positive thinking towards environmental problems by incorporating them into many subjects.

In my opinion, outdoor education should be easy to approach, and it should be seen more as a positive issue than as a problem. It is also possible to talk about climate change without a great problem-centeredness, but rather, for example, to consider what small things one can do on a daily basis. I think that outdoor education can be incorporated into many subjects … . Outdoor education should also be continuous through the whole of elementary education by advancing progressively. (Student 23)

Also, the idea of the cross-curricular themes of Finnish national core curriculum was implied in students’ responses as follow. They thought that interdisciplinary learning is flexible to implement via outdoor education.

Outdoor education should be precisely conducted at school, meaning that the teacher takes advantage of different learning environments. Nowadays, the aim in teaching is to accomplish multidisciplinary learning, and that can be used for nature-based education. (Student 38)

Student teachers incorporated sustainability issues such climate change as an example into interdisciplinary learning implementation. Student teachers also pointed out that outdoor education strengthen pupils’ relationship with nature and their respect for nature as can be seen in following citations.

Learning through nature, for example, is a concrete introduction to species. Not just look at pictures of species. Teaching respect for nature and thinking about sustainable development. (Student 17)

Outdoor education should be included in several subjects: exercise in nature with respect for nature, visual arts, environmental studies, hiking, life management, self-care. (Student 40)

I would like to see it (outdoor education) as a way to be outside and an emphasis on sustainable development. (Student 46)

Orr (2004) argues that interdisciplinary learning in the natural environments is essential because there is an ontological connection between discipline-based learning and the human exploitation of nature. From this point of view, outdoor education can support sustainability education, and the student teachers seemed to agree with this idea.

Discussion

The Finnish curriculum clearly and justifiably states that outdoor education should be used in schools. This recommendation was motivated by the benefits of outdoor education, such as its use of diverse learning environments, promotion of diverse teaching methods and improvements to student well-being (Marttila, 2016). Despite these benefits, there is no information on how outdoor education has been implemented in teacher education. Because attitudes towards outdoor education may be transferred to teachers during their training, it is important to examine student teachers’ perspectives on outdoor education. In this study, we asked student teachers about the learning environments and pedagogical aspects that they expressed using in outdoor education.

We explored the student teachers’ approaches to learning in out-of-school settings with an open-ended questionnaire. According to our results, the student teachers emphasised the importance of nature, their surrounding environments (including built and unbuilt environments) and informal (e.g. museum) and non-formal (e.g. science camp) learning environment as an outdoor learning environment. These aspects are compatible with the definitions of ‘outdoor learning environment’ given in previous studies (e.g. Dahlgren & Szczepanski, 1998; Humberstone et al., 2016). Genc, Genc, and Rasgele (2018) pointed out that activities which are nature-based in design have a positive effect on student attitudes towards living organisms and the environment and on their affective tendencies. This effect is also seen in the results of the present study. During their education, student teachers should be encouraged to utilise versatile learning environments. Gray and Martin (2012) asserted that an environmental place-based responsiveness should be part of a new vision for outdoor education. This responsiveness is also seen in this study, as many student teachers viewed nature and locality as spaces where outdoor education can occur.

The student teachers viewed appropriate sustainability education, active learning, participatory learning, making observations and multidisciplinary learning as viable teaching methods for outdoor education. Auer (2008) emphasized the five senses approach to outdoor environmental education for clarifying cause-and-effect relationships between people and the environment, sensory perception makes students aware their own biological connections to the environment. However, the analysed data do not reveal how the student teachers defined sustainability in outdoor education. Stone (2009) has developed four guiding principles for educating children on sustainability, and they can also be used in teacher education: 1) nature is our teacher, 2) sustainability is a community practice, 3) the real world is the optimal learning environment and 4) sustainable living is rooted in a deep knowledge of and attachment to place.

Nowadays, digitalisation is applied in many ways to outdoor education. For example, Zacharia, Lazaridou, and Avraamidou (2016) found that using mobile devices for data collection enhanced students’ conceptual understanding more than using traditional data collection means. Hergan and Umek (2017) pointed out that the children were more independent and made fewer mistakes when using a mobile navigator than when using a paper map. However, Land and Zimmerman (2015) pointed out that making connections between the concepts introduced on the mobile device and the application of them outdoors was challenging for learners without explicit social and/or technological support during their identification tasks. Churchill, Kennedy, Flint, and Cotton (2010) observed collaboration and reflection in students when they used handheld devices for outdoor data collection. Tan, Liu, and Chang (2007) found that digitalisation significantly improved elementary school student motivation and learning. Yoon, Elinich, Wang, Steinmeier, and Tucker (2012) concluded that secondary school students had greater cognitive gains when scaffolds and digital augmentations were used in science museum education.

In the present study, technology and digitalisation were not emphasised in the results. From this perspective, the results differ from the Finnish national curriculum’s core objectives. The student teachers did not explain why they excluded digitalisation from outdoor education. Rather, they simply did not mention the concept. Thus, the student teachers may not have felt the need for devices to implement their outdoor education measures. Nevertheless, digitalisation, such as augmented reality, aids outdoor education when used properly, in part because of its motivational effect (Radu, 2014). Therefore, digitalisation should be considered during teacher education.

The Finnish student teachers had preliminary knowledge of outdoor learning spaces and clear visions about how to conduct outdoor education. In principle, the student teachers had sufficient knowledge of the possibilities of outdoor learning. Based on this result, we conclude that the student teachers had a broad understanding of teaching outdoors, were motivated to use this approach and wanted to transform classroom-based learning processes.

Limitations

As guidelines for the development of teaching courses, the results of the present study are limited in their potential applications. Because this is a case study, its results cannot be generalised. Further research is required to understand how the learning processes used in outdoor education relate to complex phenomenon-based learning methods. For example, to study how outdoor education could support learners’ relationship with nature through, for example, by teaching in the forests. Or, for example, open up current sustainability issues such as biodiversity loss by learning species richness in meadows and manicured gardens.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Ilkka Ratinen

Ilkka Ratinen works as an Associate Professor in the field of sustainability and outdoor education at the University of Lapland. He gained his PhD at 2016 in education, and in geography 2005.

Erika Sarivaara works as a Senior Lecturer at Department of Education at the University of Lapland. She gained her PhD in 2012 in education.

Pirjo Kuukkanen works as a school teacher at Muonio school. She is a doctoral student at the University of Lapland.