Connectedness to nature: a tale of three scales

Figures & data

Figure 1. Location of the cases where the three different C2N scales were applied (SAEC = school-age educare).

Table 1. Biophilia Interview process data.

Empirical data / Research field notes			Analysis notes
Quantitative summary	Practitioners	Children	Researchers
N = 51 Mean: 7.6 (σ = 2.7) Mean girls: 7.2 Mean boys: 7.9 Range: 2–11 Kuder-Richardson 20 = .84	Practitioners think the results fit with their child group. Practitioners were surprised by some children’s answers and therefore reflected on their own teaching and children’s interpretation of the statements in the interview. Standard assessment tools, such as talking to each child about what photos etc. should be included in that child’s digital documentation map, are by most practitioners considered more suitable than the BI.	The interview was too long; children’s interest was only maintained about halfway through. The word ‘creek’ in the interview was unfamiliar to several children. The interview environment affected the children’s interest and the power balance.	The BI is viewed by the practitioners as a tool that measures children’s C2N in an accurate way. The interview benefits from being shortened. Practitioners’ knowledge of their children gave valuable insight in the accuracy of children’s answers. Too abstract or too concrete statements might influence children’s answers, as well as children’s wishes to please practitioners.Most practitioners viewed the BI as too blunt (as an instrument) for their own assessment of children.

Figure 2. Emoji-based Likert responses.

Table 2. CNI process data.

Empirical data / Research field notes			Analysis notes
Quantitative summary	Practitioners	Children	Researchers
N = 142 Mean = 4.3 (σ = 0.63) Cronbach’s alpha = .74	Practitioners were generally positive. Practitioners were generally interested in the process. Practitioners were happy to have a researcher conduct the scale compared to doing it themselves. Practitioners were curious about how the data will be used. Practitioners were apologetic about the SAEC’s schedule and “chaos” challenges. Practitioners were often eager to help out, willing to follow specific cues, and support a systematic approach.	Children were positive and interested. Social influence in response were observed. Children were eager to talk about the topics during the testing. Children focused on one positive or negative example rather than generalizing, e.g. negative focus on rats when deciding interest in wild animals. Children seemed to appreciate the rhythm of questions, cues, discussion, and quiet answer time. Verbal discounting of the direct connection question.	Generally positive experience for teachers and children. Newness of this approach created both interest and insecurity (teachers and children) Social sharing in responding is a concern. Systematic approach is necessary to help children and teachers engage comfortably. A question regarding construct validity based on extensive confusion with one of the questions

Figure 3. The adapted application of INS with illustrations. The original question: “how interconnected are you with nature? Please circle the picture that best describes your relationship with the natural environment”.

Table 3. INS process data.

Empirical data / Research field notes			Analysis notes
Quantitative summary	Practitioners	Children	Researchers
55 % of the children indicated a full interconnected ness with nature (score of 7). However, due to the problem mentioned in the text, the test results were considered invalid.	The practitioners found it problematic to ask about first CNI and later INS in the present social-cultural context (limited language skills/low age/difficult questions). Timing of the testing interfered with activities which made the volunteers less motivated for undertaking the data collection. In some cases, the questions inspired good discussions despite difficulties by answering.	Most children were motivated for the activities rather than answering long questionnaires. Many children had no familiarity with nature (both as object and concept). Some children were cognitively challenged by the questions – e.g. concrete versus abstract understanding of nature / the INS visualization (see Figure 3).	The INS scale relies on respondent’s familiarity with the concept of “nature” – in this case supported by the illustration. Lack of experience with nature (as object and/or concept) proved to challenge the applicability of the scale in the specific context (situation, age and background). Despite fostering good discussions in some situations, use of INS was terminated in the evaluation due to overall considerations regarding ethics, motivation, and appropriateness for the context.

Table 4. Case study synthesis: key themes.

Theme	Description	BI	CNI	INS
Language	Results emphasize the importance of words or images used in the research process; Children’s language skills are considered.	*	*	*
Respect	Results address children’s understanding of, comfort with, and well-being during the research process is critical; Power dimensions considered.	*	*	*
Time	Results related to both duration of research participation and timing of scale use; Time as a key situational factor is considered.	*	*	*
Adult support	Results explore the role of adults in guiding and supporting children during the process; Practitioners’ knowledge of the children to support the research process is considered.	*	*
Conceptual accuracy	Results indicate scale appears to accurately measure children’s C2N; Whether the concept is relative to the outcome is considered.	*	*
Age-appropriate	Results related to age group experience of the research process; Child development is considered.		*	*
Utility	Results explore whether using the scale provides helpful outcomes; Practitioner application is considered.	*		*
Group size	Results emphasize appropriate group size setting for child response; Attention to individual and small group experience is considered.		*
Nature experience	Results indicate varying ideas of what nature means. The results question whether children have an adequate base of understanding the scale.			*
Research process	Results indicate importance of careful scale administration to reduce individual social interaction and response conformity during the process; Research integrity is considered.		*

Figure 4. Meta-themes to guide C2N scale use.

Table 5. C2N scale use checklist.

C2N scale use checklist	No	Yes
Common goal Researchers and practitioners share a common goal for the measurement.
Conceptual clarity The concept of nature, and connection to nature is clarified and is appropriate for children’s understanding and socio-cultural context.
Child well-being Methods for capturing child response are comfortable for the children, if not enjoyable.
Research process (program integration) The process does not have a negative impact on other program goals or logistics; ideally the process benefits the program.
Research process (data collection) The choice of a measurement scale allows for a deliberate, systematic, and transparent process to ensure data integrity.