A balancing act: a constructivist perspective of the adult’s role in Forest School in England and Forest Kindergarten in Denmark

ABSTRACT

Influenced by Danish early years practice, Forest School in England is a popular way of young children experiencing the outside environment. Beyond this initial connection there is little known about the relationship between the two approaches, in particular the role of the adult. As a response, this study uses interview and observation to explore how practitioners and pedagogues understand and implement forest pedagogy in different contexts. Analysis of data through a constructivist lens, allowed the practices and behaviours of the sample four participants to be examined, providing new insight into the role of the adult. By identifying pedagogues co-constructed experiences with children, whereas practitioners scaffolded experiences for children, this paper recognises the complex role of the educator in Forest Learning and challenges previously held views. It concludes that both scaffolding and co-constructing behaviours are ways for adults to create forest experiences with and for children, although these create different outcomes. By acknowledging the different ways adults operate in forest settings, this paper suggests a re-examination of the role of adults in Forest School would be beneficial.

KEYWORDS:

• Forest School
• Forest Kindergarten
• outside play
• pedagogy
• constructivism

Introduction

Introduced in England in 1993, Forest School is popular with many settings that use the approach with young children to learn through play in woodland spaces (Knight 2009). Different from other kinds of outdoor learning, Forest School has a unique philosophy that is closely associated with friluftsliv or Danish outdoor lifestyle. Although research has investigated its benefits, for example, Murray and O’Brien (2005), O’Brien and Murray (2006) and Maynard (2007a), and academics such as Leather (2013) and Waite, Bolling, and Bentsen (2015), have theorised the use of a constructivist lens, to date Forest School has not been explored using constructivist theory. Further, there has not been an empirical study that compares pedagogy and practice in England with Denmark. Fulling that gap, this qualitative case study uses observation and semi-structured interview to explore pedagogues and practitioners understanding and enactment of Forest Kindergarten and Forest School. Through a constructivist lens, it was possible to analyse practitioner and pedagogue behaviours and interactions as they performed ‘forest pedagogy’, identifying similarities and differences. Bounded by a small sample of four participants, this study provides a new insight into Forest School and Forest Kindergarten from the perspectives of the adults involved.

Hereafter, the Danish case will be referred to as Forest Kindergarten, and the adults as pedagogues, whilst the English case is referred to as Forest School and the adults as practitioners. The term Forest Learning coined by Mackinder (2023) is used to refer to the practice of outdoor learning in both contexts.

Forest School

Since McMilllan’s open-air nurseries, early years settings in England have made use of the outside environment and nature informally as part of free play provision (Garrick 2009). Since 2008, outside play has been included in the Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS), (DfE 2017). Although not endorsed as a part of the curriculum, Forest School can support play and learning (Harris 2017), typically running alongside nursery practice, which in England involves children under the age of 5 years. Adapted from practice observed in Denmark, known as Forest Kindergarten, Forest School was established with young children in mind although it is now popular with different ages and client groups (Williams-Siegfredson 2012).

As a grass roots approach to playing and learning outside, ideas spread through word of mouth, and although early studies by Massey (2002) and Eastwood and Mitchell (2003), tried to define Forest School, pedagogy lacked firm theoretical underpinning (Leather 2018; Swarbrick, Eastwood, and Tutton 2004). It was not until 2012, after practitioners called for a national model, that the Forest School Association (FSA 2022), in consultation with the Forest School community set up a working party, and a more robust set of principles were agreed. Similar to Knight (2009), the 6 principles explain that Forest School should take place in a woodland or natural environment. That it is planned for, as part of a long-term process rather than a one-off visit. It uses a learner-centred pedagogical approach, that encourages independent and creative learning, where appropriate risk taking is led by trained staff (Wellings 2012).

Currently, there are many different examples and practices calling themselves Forest School (McCree 2013). With more variety in interpretation, what originally started as an approach similar to the Danish early year’s practice of playing outside, identified by Massey (2002) and Eastwood and Mitchell (2003) as learner-centred and play-based, had shifted towards more adult-directed and adult-led activities (Davis and Waite 2005; Waite, Davis, and Brown 2006 and Mackinder 2017).

Practitioner or leader

Significant differences in philosophy and practice between early years practitioners and those trained as Forest School Leaders have been identified (Kemp 2020; Mackinder 2017; Maynard 2007a, 2007b). Although not essential, many have undertaken training to level 3 so the title of Forest School Leader can be awarded (Knight 2009; Wellings 2012). Other degree qualified practitioners have incorporated ideas from books and teaching manuals, that are now readily available, cheaper and less time-consuming, although only provide a limited philosophical and pedagogical background (Leather 2018; Waite, Bolling, and Bentsen 2015), which can result in practitioners adopting a ‘we use what works attitude’ (Eaude 2011, 13). With such variation, McCree (2013) proposed a continuum of Forest School ranging from ‘lite’ to ‘full fat’ depending on how many of the 6 FSA principles implemented. What seems important is that the practitioner implements pedagogy through careful planning, uses observation to tailor and scaffold learning for the participants and uses dialogue to build relationships with learners (Wellings 2012). However, interpreting and implementing Forest School pedagogy in different ways can impact on children’s engagement and experiences (Kemp 2020; Mackinder 2017, 2023; Maynard 2007a, 2007b).

Forest Kindergarten

In Denmark, the use of the outside environment with young children has remained rooted in Froebel’s idea of a children’s garden or kindergarten. Using nature with young children remains widespread and is incorporated into most early childhood practice (Gulløv 2003). The dominant view is that outdoor play is the best way for young children to learn (Sandseter 2014). Settings such as bornehaven or Forest Kindergarten take their name and inspiration from the range of outside locations that include nature in children’s early experiences.

Supported by The Strengthened Pedagogical Curriculum (MSA. 2020), the starting point for early years provision emphasises that children should be allowed the time and space to be ‘children for as long as they need’ (Kristjansson 2006, 21). This social pedagogic approach is informed by social, cultural and political values and underpinned by theoretical ideas on how best to deliver this vision (Clark 2020). Forest Kindergarten focuses on educating the whole child in a broad sense through a core curriculum that is developed at an institutional level. This experiential pedagogy is play-based, and active, with a strong emphasis on playing outdoors (Clark 2020) and being ‘socially competent’ (Brostöm 1998, 118). Attending all day, children have large quantities of open-ended, uninterrupted time in which to initiate their own play (Williams-Siegfredson 2012). Collaboration is encouraged (Brostöm 1998), whilst interactions with peers are viewed as equal to or better than relationships with adults (Kristjansson 2006). Pedagogues facilitate and support children through social situations and interactions as learning experiences (Jensen, Brostöm, and Hansen 2010).

Pedagogue

The pedagogue’s role is closely associated with pedagogy. Pedagogues are degree qualified, early educators who do not teach anything (Wagner 2003), rather they facilitate the active process of children’s learning through experiences, responding to the individual children and their needs (Jensen 2011; Williams-Siegfredson 2012). A central tenet of Danish early years provision is that children have large amounts of uninterrupted play (Williams-Siegfredson 2012), that is free from ‘free from excessive control and supervision’ which helps to develop autonomy (Wagner 2003, 292). Pedagogues share power through negotiation, follow the child’s lead and facilitate learning (Brostrom 2006). They observe, provide and interact but ‘do not dictate’ (Knight 2013, 7). Pedagogues use their pedagogical knowledge of the process of learning through play, to encourage children to develop an understanding of themselves and their relationships with others. Children can take on responsibility, challenge themselves, experiment, try to solve problems and be creative thinkers (Williams-Siegfredson 2012). Negotiating with others builds resilience and all experiences work towards the children becoming autonomous (Gulløv 2003).

Play, constructivism and the adult role

Since Rousseau identified the value of play for a child’s development (Gianoitsos 2006), play has featured heavily in early childhood pedagogy. However, with many different interpretations in theory and practice, play remains a contested concept (Wood and Attfield 2005). Whilst contemporary thinking values play, there are many interpretations on the continuum of play, ranging from child-initiated, free-play to playful learning (Pyle and Danniels 2017). Whilst play is initiated by children, learning is the result of activity initiated by educators (Pramling Samuelson and Asplund Carlsson 2008).

Views on the value of free play over learning and structured activities, and the adult’s role can vary according to the dominant ideology, political agendas and social priorities, with the kind of provision advocated distinctive to each unique social and cultural environment (Leggett and Newman 2017). The contribution adults make in promoting free play or learning through play in Forest School and Forest Kindergarten is less documented, and needs clarification.

The role of the educator, and the skills they use are important in developing children’s understanding and moving their thinking forward (Pramling Samuelson and Asplund Carlsson 2008). Further the way adults work outside, compared with inside can be different, especially as outside play can be viewed by some as dangerous (Wood 2013). For example, to keep children safe from harm outside, adults can prioritise supervision of children over meaningful interactions, which can result in an artificial separation of play and learning (Bodrova and Leong 2010).

Play provides many opportunities to experiment, explore and discover, making it the ideal way of learning (Daniels 2001). From a Vygotskian perspective, play-based learning is most effective when it is interactive and involves people, the environment and objects, and where educators are skilled in their supporting role (Leggett and Newman 2017). Vygotsky (1978) posits that cognitive development stems from social interactions and communication, which is supported through negotiated relationships, with an equal balance of power. According to Laevers (2000) deep level learning occurs when children have extended amounts of time playing. Consequently, constructivist theory, in particular Vygotsky and post-Vygotskian research on play still has a significant influence on early childhood pedagogy and early years practice, such as Forest School (Bodrova and Leong 2007).

For this study the theoretical ideas of constructivism, including the concepts of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), scaffolding, co-construction and intersubjectivity are used to analyse data, and gain a better understanding of adult roles, especially that of more knowledgeable other (MKO), and how this aligns with pedagogical practices in both Forest School and Forest Kindergarten. Jordan’s (2009, 34) ‘scaffolding interactions’ whereby questioning focuses on specific knowledge, feedback is provided on fixed skills, and specific skills relating to problem solving are modelled to reach desired outcomes that relate to an outcome pre-determined by the adult are also referred to. Praise is offered for small achievements, and lastly telling children facts in the context of an adult learning agenda. All are examples of one-way or limited two-way interactions, that result in an asymmetric power balance where the adult scaffolds learning for children (Jordan 2009, 49–50).

Different to scaffolding, co-constructing emphasises the child as a ‘powerful player in their own learning’, with adults and children working together through a symmetrical or negotiated balance of power that develops intersubjectivity (Jordan 2009, 42). The adult values the child’s preferences and ideas, and through dialogue where the adult listens to the child as an equal, the adult gives voice to the child (Jordan 2009). Goals are jointly identified and with an emphasis on process a pathway through the activity is negotiated (Olusoga 2014). It is through these behaviours that adults are ‘co-constructing learning with children’ (Jordan 2009, 49–50) or that adults and children are co-constructing experiences together.

The research

Context

The research reported here was carried out in two locations. The first, a Forest School session in a nursery school, in the East Midlands. The second, a Forest Kindergarten in Denmark. Kindergarten happened all day, so to maintain consistency in each case data were collected over two, 2 ½ hour morning sessions. To achieve reliable and credible results, and a detailed understanding of each context (Kumar 2014) two instruments, observation and interview were applied. After initial contact, the two adult participants from each setting volunteered to participate in the study. Liz and Ian, both level 3 Forest School trained leaders and early years practitioners with undergraduate degrees in early childhood education. Hana and Arne are pedagogues in Forest Kindergarten, both with undergraduate degrees in pedagogy with specialisms in using outdoor environments. All four participants were interviewed, and observed. Field notes were used to record the observations, with a particular emphasis on the adult’s behaviour, how they interact with the children and in activity. The focus of the semi-structured interviews was on gaining an in-depth understanding from an adult’s perspective.

Ethical considerations

Principles from both the British Educational Research Association (BERA. 2018) guidelines, and the Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (DCCRI 2014) were used to adopt ethically aware practices and relationships whilst carrying out the study. Before beginning the research and throughout the study ethical protocols were followed (Arsel 2017). These include gaining informed consent from all participants adults, children and children’s parents. To minimise risk, ethical principles were at the forefront of the data collection, and reflexivity was practised by the researcher to ensure that children were respected, with their dignity and safety protected at all times, including their right to be involved in the study, or not (Dockett 2021). All names of the participants and settings have been changed to protect their identities. All participants were aware that they could withdraw prior to data analysis.

Methods

Using an exploratory case study approach (Bassey 1999) provided the opportunity to ask ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions regarding adult behaviours and interactions (Yin 2009). Data were collected over two mornings in each setting. As a primary source of data (Cohen, Manion, and Morrison 2011), both observation and interviews have been used previously in Forest School research for example, Massey (2002), Maynard (2007a) and Mackinder (2017).

Observation

Observation is more than just looking at events and social interactions. Rather than being a non-participant or covert observer (Merriam 1988) which might be seen by children as surveillance or an intrusion into their private worlds (Clark, McQuail, and Moss 2003), the observer was positioned as a participant observer. The observer could stand back to make notes, and interact with children if needed, whilst at the same time try not to influence children’s behaviours (Dockett 2021). In a natural setting, events can be open to individual interpretation, with the researcher seeing what they want to see (Gray 2012). For the observer to gain a valuable insight into the actions and motivations of those being observed, it was necessary for the observer to adhere to a protocol and ethical principles (Arsel 2017). Audio recordings and descriptive field notes were used as a framework for documenting the events as they unfolded, capturing as much detail as possible (Merriam et al. 2001). To maintain consistency, each of the four observations (two in each case) lasted approximately 20 min, although the timings were loose to account for seeing any situations through to an appropriate ending.

In the Danish case Hana spoke to me in English when I was observing her, and translated Danish for me, including the conversation between Arne and the children. Although not ideal as there was the potential for bias in Hana’s interpretation, this was necessary to gain an insight into the interactions (Bassey 1999). Significant snippets of audio recordings were checked by a Danish-speaking colleague for accuracy. Data collected was analysed and later informed the interview questions.

Semi-structured interview

After the observation, all four participants were interviewed using a semi-structured style. Rather than using a formally structured interview, with a list of exact questions, semi-structured interviews were used to gain an insight into the complex phenomenon of Forest School and Kindergarten and the thoughts and perspectives of the interviewee (Brinkmann and Kvale 2015). To maintain consistency across the two cases, and to avoid bias, provisional questions were listed and used as an aide memoire during each interview (Arsel 2017). The relaxed interview style is unthreatening and useful for putting the participant at ease, resulting in more authentic responses (O’Reilly 2012).

Alongside the prepared questions, and to account for the different nature of each case, additional questions were generated from the observations (Denscombe 2010). Depending on the answers given follow-up questions were asked to provide clarity (Brinkmann and Kvale 2015). These served to clarify and confirm information collected through observation and provide more detailed information, helping to establish underlying motives and beliefs that inform behaviours. Perhaps most importantly they provided different perspectives. With consent, the semi-structured interview was audio recorded and transcribed as soon as possible and then analysed (Brinkmann and Kvale 2015). Leaving the semi-structured interviews until the end of the project allowed time for a research relationship to build between the interviewer and interviewee, as well as providing opportunity to discuss what was seen in the observation.

Findings

Each observation was analysed separately using an inductive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006). This was repeated and refined until codes were established across each data set and themes could be identified and compared across the two data sets. Similarities and differences were identified. Interview data were used to provide in-depth knowledge, background and supplementary information.

The sessions

The Forest School observation and interviews took place in a nursey school in a semi- rural town in the East of England, with 26 children aged 3–4 years and 5 practitioners. The Forest Kindergarten was in rural Denmark. All 65 children aged 3–6 years, and 8 pedagogues were bussed there daily from Copenhagen. All four participants were observed. In Forest School Ian and Liz, both early years practitioners and trained Forest School leaders. Danish pedagogues, Arne and Hana, in Forest Kindergarten.

Although sessions in both cases had rules and routines which structured the children’s experiences, how children were supervised, and how space and activities were managed by adults varied. Different amount of time spent doing Forest School for example a 2 ½ hour session, compared to all day every day at Forest Kindergarten was also a contributory factor. In Forest School there was a ‘tidy up time’ at the end, whereas in Forest Kindergarten there was no designated time to tidy up.

The kind of activities children were involved in varied in each case and was related to how activities came about. In Forest School, practitioners planned activities, and structured play by providing resources. In Forest Kindergarten, pedagogues used a free-play pedagogy, and therefore did not plan activities or provide resources for children, who were able to source tools and materials as needed.

Activity

Before the children arrived in Forest School, Ian had planned then set up a messy activity best done outside as an adult focused painting activity. This involved a large roll of paper spread on the floor, alongside the trays of paint and a selection of different size and textured balls for rolling in the paint and on the paper. Liz suggested that,

children get more out of [Forest School] with focus activities [the children are at a] certain age where they need us to stimulate them as well as to get engaged in some activities [they] get more from it with adult help. She added ‘if the activities are new, different or dangerous’ or ‘if they were using tools or equipment that would be dangerous or messy we call it an adult focus activity’.

Ian’s instructing style meant that the children frequently looked to him for a response, resulting in them following him, and using limited initiative. Once children had completed the activity they went elsewhere.

Arne, the Danish pedagogue was observed whittling with a group of children. The activity arose out of him cutting down some low branches. The children decided to collect knives, gathered around a picnic table, and started to whittle. Arne told me,

we just start doing something and the children may come over … we don’t go out of our way to them, if they want to come they will … they’re usually just interested in what we’re doing and they want to help and they join in.

In asking Arne to join in with their whittling activity, the children demonstrated their control over the activity, and their autonomy (Olusoga 2014). By joining them at the picnic table, and starting to whittle Arne consented his approval. In Forest School Ian started his planned activity by calling children over by name, asking them Do you want to do some painting? suggesting he holds the power. Ian explained and demonstrated the painting activity, encouraging the children to use the balls and roll them in the paint before rolling them on large sheets of paper. As the whittling developed organically. Arne, took his lead from the children, their actions and needs.

Ian and Arne inhabited the same physical space as the children. While Arne spent most of the time sitting at the same picnic table as the children, Ian’s physical presence was more evident as he varied between crouching down at the child’s level and standing up over the activity and children. Possibly because of the nature of each activity, but also part of personal interacting preferences, Arne’s movements were small and subtle, whilst Ian’s were larger and more visible. As a result, Arne’s presence did not dominate, whereas Ian’s involvement was more explicit.

In their own ways, both Ian and Arne modelled desired behaviours and skills. For different reasons, the children watched the adult, then mimicked their actions. In Forest School, the children did as they were instructed by Ian and rolled the balls in paint and then on the paper. Less formally the children in Forest Kindergarten observed Arne’s actions before copying them. This dynamic was more noticeable when the children encountered difficulties. Arne acted quite subtly, whittling slowly and paying careful attention to what he was doing but did not control the activity, nor children’s participation in it. This shows an equal power balance between adult and children (Jordan 2009). Ian was more authoritative, and his instruction style was more didactic. His demonstration was explicit and his expectations were clear, showing he had control over both the activity and the children (Jordan 2009). Ian and Arne as MKO’s both demonstrated behaviours that were typical for them, but different. Modelling in this way, they were supporting the children indirectly in their ZPD.

Relationships

Ian and Arne’s interactions revealed their detailed knowledge and respect for individual children, for example, using their names, making comments based on personal knowledge and humour to establish and reinforce personal bonds. Ian routinely commented on the children’s small achievements well done for picking up the ball and excellent, you rolled the ball, which related to their fine motor skill development (Jordan 2009). He explained there was a deliberate emphasis on encouraging the boys to participate as we want the boys to join in and enjoy ‘cos they might not choose to do it if it was inside. Arne was also highly observant. He told me it was clear from the children’s faces that they were involved and absorbed in what they were doing. Arne used his experience of previous similar activities and of the children to guide [him] for example checking in on a child who he knew had not whittled before or were not very experienced. Also focusing on skill development, when necessary, he leaned in nearer to the child and spoke a few quiet words of reassurance, more in line with co-constructing behaviour (Jordan 2009). Engrossed in the whittling, the children chatted about things they were interested in such as football, commented on personal events and pointed out things other children were doing nearby. Arne explained that the activity was never about an end product rather it is about being involved and engaged its the thinking and feeling that’s important. Ian also listened to the children, nodding frequently, and responding with a few words of praise or guidance. He also joked with the children and made reference to past shared experiences and events.

Interventions

In Forest School, Liz’s assigned role was observing and supporting children in continuous provision. This involved monitoring child-initiated play from a fixed position on one side of the outside space. Although Hana was carrying out a similar role in Forest Kindergarten, she was not restricted by space, but moved around according to what she saw, the children’s needs and her judgement on where I needed to be. Given that there was more space and more children in Forest Kindergarten Hana moved a lot, whereas Liz, although with fewer children had less options for movement in the smaller space of Forest School, and was relatively static by comparison. The actual physical space available may have had an effect on the scope for movement as well as on the different roles assigned and adopted.

When Liz observed two boys talking animatedly about some puppets she intervened quickly. Jack had been playing on his own with the puppets for a while but clearly wanted Will to join in. When Will would not leave the den where he was playing to go with Jack, Jack struggled to manage his emotions and was visibly upset. Spotting this, Liz went over to Jack sat down next to him asking him Can you put the puppets in order? She then watched him sequence and retell the story of Chicken Licken. Although Liz’s intervention distracted Jack, by moving into the child’s physical play space, she shifted the nature of the space and altered the balance of power through her scaffolding questions (Jordan 2009). The activity changed from being playful and initiated by Jack, towards one with an educational outcome imposed by Liz, who is now controlling the process and outcome of the play (Vygotsky 1978). As there was history to this relationship between the boys, Liz felt justified in her intervention. In addition, her proximity to the situation might have been a factor in her quick response time. She was also aware that I was observing, so may have reacted more quickly. Unfortunately, I could only ask Liz about her thought processes later.

Hana was also observed intervening in the play of a group of boys. From her position, she was aware that the group had been dragging large logs into the playhouse. She used her knowledge of this group to inform me that they always do this … I’m OK with it to a point. She continued to wait, and watch and wait some more for almost 4 min. It was only when she saw them drag in the football goal, and then start climbing over the huge pile of items that she slowly walked over and then spoke to them. Hana told me later that she didn’t want to interrupt the flow of their play and know that they are OK. Her approach of standing back and watching from a distance, which was facilitated by a large amount of space available, gave the group time to sort things out for themselves.

Hana’s commentary showed her awareness of the circumstances of the situation, and illustrates her deliberate decision not to intervene until she thought that the boys were not going to resolve it for themselves. By adopting a listening approach, she did not impose her view, similar to Arne, she was neither authoritative nor controlling. Rather she encouraged the group to make their own suggestions, attempt solutions, whilst she stood back, leaving them to resolve the situation for themselves (Wagner 2003). Like Liz, her intervention initially shifted the power in the play space, but by withdrawing quickly and by not imposing a solution on the group Hana allowed them to take action themselves, so the balance of power was only temporary affected. In stepping away Hana passed the control, power and ownership back to the group (Jordan 2009). Hana’s negotiating approach is more typical of co-constructing interactions which empowers the group (Jordan 2009).

Both Liz and Hana demonstrated their ability to step into an activity of step back from it to allow children time to work things out for themselves (Williams-Siegfredson 2012). Although similar each mediated the experiences differently (Vygotsky 1978). The subtle distinction between scaffolding and co-constructing interactions as seen here can have far-reaching effects on the children’s long-term, social and emotional development, as well as on their safety and perception of being safe. Both adults wanted to resolve the situation. Observation informed interventions, although response time was different. Whereas Liz’s interaction style was authoritative, monitoring and potentially limiting, Hana’s dialogue and negotiation allowed children an opportunity to learn how to be autonomous (Jordan 2009).

Discussion

All four adults made pedagogical decisions that informed their behaviours especially when planning, leading or supporting activities and intervening in children’s play and learning. The two practitioners predominantly scaffolded for children, whereas the two pedagogues mainly co-constructed with children. Variations seem to be based on a range of factors including the purpose of early education and care in each context, contrasting theoretical ideas on where, and how young children learn best, opposing constructions of the child, and different curricular emphasis in each context. These factors seem influential and possibly account for the differences in adults’ understanding and behaviours.

Scaffolding

In Forest School, Liz viewed children as inexperienced and needing support and adults as the most important resource. As protectors practitioners were needed to make the most of forest school especially as outside play was considered dangerous or risky compared with inside learning. Aware of the early years curriculum and children’s developmental needs, Liz and Ian wanted every session [to be] different. They achieved this by planning a variety of resources so children could to be involved in a range of activities. However, at times children’s choices were limited by what was made available by the practitioners, whilst planned activities were tightly structured and at times unresponsive to individual or developmental needs.

Liz and Ian’s dominant interaction styles of modelling and instructing were identified as typical of scaffolding (Jordan 2009). Ian led the painting activity by asking questions and inviting comments, directing the children whilst making sure educational outcomes were met. By scaffolding through planned activities and play, Liz and Ian made learning more visible. Ian also had time to monitor, record and keep track of children’s learning.

For Liz a key part of keeping children safe involved her observing and monitoring children’s activity. By intervening frequently, and as soon as difficulties occurred, she felt able to keep learning on track and bring the focus back to developing social skills and educational outcomes. However, over-vigilance and intervening too soon could mean the children had no time to work things through for themselves and little space to be autonomous. This surveillance style of observation and interaction, possibly driven by an outcome agenda, over prioritised educational outcomes and safety over opportunities for experimentation through trial and error.

At times interactions between Liz, Ian and the children were more functional than meaningful (Bodrova and Leong 2007), with a risk that play could become too mechanical (Stone 2012). Although this approach made progress easier to measure, scaffolding involved a lot of structure, which resulted in fewer opportunities for children to explore on their own and be autonomous. Ian and Liz did not always focus on children’s own discoveries or adjust their approach to suit the situation or the leaner’s individual needs. The physical space was mostly constructed by adults. Whilst this made it safe, it also meant that children had less room to follow their own thoughts, make decisions and less time for their actions to take shape. Considered together, these scaffolding interactions coupled with high levels of monitoring, could potentially limit children’s learning opportunities to play freely or push their own boundaries, particularly in spaces away from an adult’s gaze, as well as reinforce the child’s reliability on adults.

Co-constructing

In Forest Kindergarten, Hana saw the environment as the most important resource and consequently activities were not planned, instead play evolved out of the children’s interactions in and with their natural environment. Hana and Arne relied on a variety of natural stimuli to spark children’s interest and engage them in spontaneous, free play which creates an intense form of concentration and involvement (Laevers 2000). Viewing children as capable and experienced, Hana and Arne left children to make their own decisions, and create their own play uninterrupted and away from adults (Wagner 2003; Williams-Siegfredson 2012). They saw their role as facilitating and interacting with the children in co-constructing ways (Jordan 2009).

The children asked Arne to participate in the whittling activity and he did so as an equal. He sat with the children, and let the children’s needs, actions and comments guide him. Arne’s interactions were informal. He did not pose questions, instead he ‘listened in’, observed and chatted, similar to a parent interacting with their child. By listening, waiting and not speaking he gave the children space and time to discover things for themselves, at their own pace without interference (Wagner 2003). Rather than achieving set outcomes, learning was incidental, especially as Arne was concerned with the process of the activity and social engagement.

Curriculum

Different behaviours such as scaffolding and co-constructing identified here directly relate to either a play or learning agenda (Pyle and Danniels 2017). Variations in curricular emphasis in each country may contribute to these differences.

The Danish ‘Strengthened Pedagogical Curriculum’ (MSA 2020), is characterised by a free play pedagogy, so there was no need for Arne and Hana to plan activities as they developed out of the environment and nature. With no formal assessments, pedagogues were not under pressure to judge or measure outcomes, so could adopt a supportive and facilitative role, rather than direct teaching (Wagner and Einarsdottir 2006). Responding dynamically to their observations (Jensen 2011), Hana and Arne allowed children time and space to work things out for themselves (Williams-Siegfredson 2012). Hana explained we are sometimes in front, sometimes to the side and sometimes behind. Through their pedagogic behaviours, Arne and Hana created space to co-construct a learning environment with children, and negotiate meaning with children.

In England, the Early Years Framework Strategy (2017) is a prescriptive curriculum (Wall, Litjens, and Taguma 2015). Assessment requirements from the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) drive measurable, educational outcomes through a learning-focused pedagogy, which could be responsible for surveillance style observation, and high levels of monitoring characteristic of Liz and Ian. With the emphasis on teaching, and didactic interactions, practitioners plan activities, equipment and resources to motivate learning through play, or playful learning (Pyle and Danniels 2017). With less physical space, and to make Forest School safe and accessible, Liz and Ian scaffolded activities for children, formalising play as learning. In this context, free play is considered too unpredictable for achieving measurable outcomes (Wood 2013), whereas structured activities that provide variation are safer. Hence the mix of adult focus activities and play is also identified in Forest School by Waite and Davis (2007), although this creates an artificial separation between play and learning (Bodrova and Leong 2007).

Environment as pedagogic space

Depending on whether the environment has been constructed by adults for children, or jointly by adults with children, different levels of deep learning and involvement are experienced (Laevers 2000). How adults understand pedagogy, are informed by pedagogy and construct pedagogy is central. Enactment of pedagogy, whether scaffolded by adults for children, or jointly co-constructed by adults with children, shapes how children engage in, or interact with the environment.

In Forest Kindergarten, Hana said we do not know what the children are thinking so she wanted children to find their own way. By co-constructing with children pedagogues created dynamic learning spaces. Through open-ended natural imaginative play spaces, and by the two pedagogues watching and waiting and prioritising listening, there were more opportunities to ‘catch the moment’ and make ‘meaningful interactions’ (Carlson and Clark 2022, 209). Pedagogues were available to support, but only if asked for or needed. By standing back and not responding immediately, Hana and Arne created open space (Wagner and Einarsdottir 2006, 292) where children could follow through with their own ideas, and self-manage (Gulløv 2003, 34).

Hana and Arne’s behaviours gave the children in Forest Kindergarten extended amounts of time to play, make decisions for themselves, see the consequences of their actions, try to resolve situations by negotiating or thinking creatively for themselves, be curious, and absorbed in the moment and able to follow the natural flow of their ideas (Laevers 2000). Unincumbered by curriculum and assessment requirements, both pedagogues embraced children’s own play situations and discoveries. Meaningful interactions and dialogue between adults and children created secure relationships that supported play and learning giving the children voice and agency (Kristjansson 2006). By responding dynamically to events as they happened, both pedagogues were able to spend time supporting children and their play needs (Wood 2013). Through inter-subjectivity, they were co-constructing play and space with the children.

By scaffolding for children, Liz and Ian created unique, supported, but sometimes closed spaces for play and learning. With pressure from curriculum and assessment in England, they felt safe planning resources and activities. Liz and Ian understood the benefits of Forest School and wanted children to experience it so used activities to meet learning outcomes (Davis and Waite 2005). Planning and organisation created a structure which assigned adult meaning to the spaces and places. Preparing resources prioritised an adult agenda, and limited children’s choices, whilst activities narrowed creativity and exploration. At times both restricted children’s freedom and autonomy.

Within the short amount of time available outside, Liz and Ian’s surveillance and interventions further controlled both the physical and mental space. With both practitioners ready to intervene quickly and often to keep children safe most children’s movements were monitored, with little time and space to think things through, work things out for themselves, negotiate with others and take risks in their thinking or actions. With less physical space, and dialogue between adults and children focusing on learning outcomes not personal discoveries, children had less opportunity to articulate their thought processes, ideas and understanding (Vygotsky 1978) and fewer opportunities for deep level learning (Laevers 2000).

Founded on different pedagogy, the two adults in each case made clear pedagogical decisions about their behaviours especially regarding play, planned activities and when supporting or intervening in children’s play. Both scaffolding and co-constructing behaviours were used by adults to create learning experiences with and for children. Variations noted seem based on different constructions of the child, how adults view theoretical constructivist ideas on how and where children learn best (free play or structured learning) also associated with curriculum and assessment requirements, and what adults do to facilitate learning especially how they used observations to inform interventions.

Scaffolding behaviours were closely associated with an adult learning agenda, set in a context of prescribed curricular demands, and focused on accountability and measurable educational outcomes. Co-constructing behaviours are more aligned with a free-play pedagogy, pedagogically strengthened curriculum and no formal assessment requirements. The free play pedagogy dominant in Forest Kindergarten meant that learning came out of children’s play and their interactions with their environment and nature. Whereas in Forest School, pedagogy prioritised educational activities over free play, scaffolding more structured experiences for children.

Conclusion

Using the forest for play and learning remains popular in both England and Denmark, therefore knowing more about how adults facilitate this is needed. Although only a small-scale study of four participants and two cases, this study recognises that the adult is crucial to Forest School and Forest Kindergarten.

This paper acknowledges that the adult role is complex, and there are many factors influencing how adults seek to create a learning environment that is stimulating, and motivates young children to play and learn, albeit differently in each context. How adults understand pedagogy, are informed by pedagogy and construct pedagogy are crucial but can vary according to context. Enactment of pedagogy, whether scaffolded or co-constructed shapes how children engage in, or interact with the environment, as either scaffolded or co-constructed experiences leading to different constructions of Forest School or Forest Kindergarten, result in varied experiences, and different outcomes. Therefore, educators should be mindful of their pedagogical approach and match it to their desired outcomes. Further examination of the adult role would lead to a deeper understanding of any differences especially between Forest School leaders and practitioners in England with pedagogues in Denmark.

Pedagogy is informed by curriculum and assessment in each context and informs whether activities are planned or free play is used and are closely associated with either scaffolding or co-constructing behaviours. Variation in observational strategies, and different approaches to supervision and intervention impacted on children’s experiences. How the adult perceives the child shapes their view of what a child might be capable of, and informs whether or how they scaffold or co-construct. Viewing children as capable meant that pedagogues could co-construct Forest Kindergarten with children. With an equal balance of power, and using play pedagogy to empower children to make their own decisions, pedagogues gave children space and time to be themselves and make choices about their play. Positioning children as weak and needing protection, meant that practitioners in Forest School positioned themselves as the protectors. By providing activities and resources, practitioners were scaffolding Forest School for children. Children had opportunities to make some decisions, although these were limited to what was available and what the adults allowed in a one-way or limited two-way power balance. This paper does not suggest that either scaffolding or co-constructing is preferable, rather that skilled, informed educators of young children, in forest environments, depending on the context and curriculum demands, move between scaffolding and co-constructing behaviours. Further, a scaffolded experience of Forest School is preferable to children not experiencing it.

As the findings of this study are tentative, extended research is needed to explore adults and children’s behaviours, to establish whether adult co-constructing and scaffolding behaviours are supporting or reinforcing socio-cultural and personal views of the child as either capable or inexperienced and needing support. In addition, further investigation into what kind of support pedagogues provide for less confident children to become more autonomous would be useful for other contexts, and how mixed age groups typical of kindergarten provide peer support which is less achievable in the fixed age groups more common in England.

Although Forest School ideas originated in Denmark, this study finds that pedagogy in each country has evolved and each are now different to the original concept from 30 years ago. Although small scale, the findings from this study offer a new perspective on Forest School and Forest Kindergarten, in particular the nuanced role of the adult. Findings are typical of each country and can be transferred to similar situations in Denmark and England, meaning that findings have significance for practitioners and pedagogues alike.

Disclosure statement

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