‘I know how to say it, but I still don’t know it in my hands’: examining practices and epistemology in Forest Education

Abstract

In recent years, Forest Education has gained increasing traction around the world. Yet its unique features, as well as their relations with other outdoor environmental education approaches, remain undertheorized. This study explores the pedagogical practices of one emerging strand of Forest Education, and the epistemology underpinning it, in order to better position it with respect to other environmental education approaches. The study is based on ethnographic fieldwork that included participatory observations and interviews in a leading Israeli Forest Education organization. We identified four key pedagogical practices: outdoor play, primitive skills and crafts, sensing, and dwelling. These, we argue, reflect an epistemology in which knowledge and learning are situated in the immediate embodied context and sensory experiences, and are intended to facilitate a meaningful connection with nature. This epistemology prioritizes such modes of learning over abstraction, generalization and transfer, which are often central to science-oriented environmental education approaches.

Keywords:

• Forest education
• epistemology
• ethnography
• embodied learning
• outdoor education

Introduction

In recent years, and especially since the spread of COVID-19, forest education (FE) has gained increasing traction around the world, in schools as well as in informal contexts (Boileau and Dabaja 2020; Burke et al. 2021; Quay et al. 2020; Say, Güneş, and Batı 2022). Yet the unique features of different approaches to FE remain undertheorized. In this paper, we suggest that accounting for the epistemological foundation of educational approaches could offer vital insights concerning its unique characteristics. Specifically, we explored the epistemology of one strand of forest education in order to better position it with respect to other FE strands in particular and to outdoor environmental education (OEE)¹ approaches in general.

A rich tradition of research on learning in natural environments has delved into the role of embodied experiences and knowledge in OEE in general (Carruthers and Hoed 2014; Dean 2019; Mathias et al. 2020; O’Brien 2009), and specifically in FE (Gurholt and Sanderud 2016; Harris 2017, 2021; Leather 2018; O’Brien 2009; Sanderud 2020). Yet research about FE epistemology, and its conceptualization of bodily actions, is scarce and lacks clear definitions (Affifi 2020; Harris 2017; MacEachren 2013). We contend that in order to better position forest education within the general OEE approach and examine how it promotes OEE goals, it is important to identify and classify the educational practices that FE instructors use (Leather 2018), and their underlying epistemology. Such an examination could allow FE and OEE educators to better coordinate between their practices and aims, a relation that is often overlooked because the unique learning environment ‘pushes’ educators to focus on practical problems first (Quay 2021).

This study explored the epistemology of a leading Israeli FE organization, which holds nonformal FE activities for children and adults. We used an ethnographic approach, and participated in approximately 100 h of an educational program for children, and an introduction course for future adult instructors. The data analysis focused on two research questions: What are the main teaching practices in this FE approach? What characterizes the epistemology that is reflected in these practices? Thus, this paper examines the relationship between the pedagogy of a specific branch of FE and its underlying epistemology, in order to refine our theoretical knowledge of this educational approach, and FE in general.

In what follows, we present previous work that links between literature about OEE and epistemology, and literature about embodied knowledge from different theoretical perspectives. The findings section identifies four key FE pedagogical practices: outdoor play, primitive skills and crafts, sensing, and dwelling. These, we argue, reflect this FE strand’s attempt to emphasize immediate bodily and sensory knowledge of nature at the expense of processes of abstraction, generalization, and transfer. In other words, it reflects the attempt to suspend intellectual and positivistic thinking, which often characterizes science-oriented OEE approaches, in favor of focusing on unmediated bodily experiences. This, in turn, highlights the different interpretations and outcomes of learning between this approach and other FE and OEE approaches.

Theoretical background

Outdoor environmental education and Forest education

Outdoor environmental education (OEE) is placed within the discipline of Environmental Education, signifying itself by focusing on teaching that takes place beyond the physical school walls (Thomas, Dyment, and Prince 2021). The overarching goals of OEE are: developing awareness, knowledge and skills that are relevant to spending time in nature, in a long and continuous process, and promoting emotional and physical well-being (Grimm et al. 2011). At its core, OEE strives to reconnect people to nature and advance a more sustainable lifestyle by promoting environmental knowledge and behaviors through several key practices: field trips, school projects and spending time in nature (Kowasch et al. 2022). These are often based on demonstrating and constructing knowledge through physical actions rather than manipulating language or symbolic means, as is stereotypically customary in schools (Lynch and Law 1999; Sefton-Green 2012). At the same time, OEE programs vary in terms of their goals and practices, including learning about nature through scientific research in the field, learning about society through participation in community initiatives, learning about the relationship between society and nature in urban nature centers, learning about the ‘self’ through nature adventure, learning about others through group experiences and many more (Rickinson et al. 2004). Nevertheless, studies on OEE found that, many of them still often focus on environmental knowledge (Stern, Powell, and Hill 2014) and that a very common practice is conveying (mostly scientific) knowledge through talk (Lavie Alon and Tal 2017; Tal, Alon, and Morag 2014). In nonformal OEE, verbal teaching decreases but the emphasis on scientific and ecological knowledge remains (Aguilar and Krasny 2011; Bell et al. 2009; Grimm et al. 2011).

Forest education is an educational approach within OEE whose overarching rationale is that the forest is not only a place to learn academic knowledge ‘In Situ’. Instead, it aims to allow students to know nature in a deeper and more holistic way (Grimm et al. 2011). By doing so, FE seeks to reduce anthropocentric ways of thinking that lead to a dichotomy between human beings and nature (Kowasch et al. 2022). Therefore, FE is sometimes presented as related to the philosophy of ‘Deep Ecology’ (Naess 1990), which aspires to create both an emotional and an intellectual connection to nature.

Although there are differences between strands of FE that stem from different cultural interpretations (e.g. the English forest schools vs. the Danish ‘Udeskole’; Leather 2018; Waite, Bølling, and Bentsen 2016), a common premise of FE is that for children to value the planet, they need to spend time in nature and explore it in a variety of ways (Harris 2021). Accordingly, most school days are spent in nature, and the natural environment is not merely a background, but is positioned at the center of learning. By doing so, an ethos of caring about nature is created combined with a cognitive, physical (Harris 2021) and, to some extent, spiritual connection to nature (Appel 2021). Common activities include lighting fires, collecting materials from nature, identifying flora and fauna and nature-oriented crafts (Appel 2021; Harris 2017, 2021).

While FE practices have been described in the literature (Gurholt and Sanderud 2016; Harris 2017, 2021; Leather 2018; O’Brien 2009; Sanderud 2020; Waite, Bølling, and Bentsen 2016), we suggest that a more refined articulation of the view of knowledge and learning – i.e. the epistemology – which distinguishes the various strands of FE from other OEE approaches is still lacking. That is, unpacking different FE strands underlying epistemology is pivotal to better appreciating (and critiquing) their attributes and deepening our understanding of this evolving approach. Hence, in this study, we contribute to the literature on OEE in general, and FE specifically, by exploring the epistemology reflected in teaching practices common in one FE strand.

Epistemology

Epistemology is a branch in philosophy that examines the origins, validity, and criteria of knowledge. Epistemological research asks questions such as: What classifies as knowledge? What are the range and scopes of knowledge? How do we know if claims are true? (Hannon 2018; Magrini 2009; Siegel 2014). Examining the epistemology of educational approaches is important because perceptions of knowledge inherently shape experiences of teaching and learning. For example, the stereotypical school curriculum reflects an epistemology according to which knowledge is separated from those who learn it, and can be ‘acquired’ by gaining ownership of facts or concepts (Sfard 1998). This epistemology is embedded in schools’ prevalent pedagogies: teaching as transmitting knowledge and learning as acquiring the knowledge one is taught (Katz 2000; Quay 2015). Assessment, in turn, measures what is said and what is remembered, with the goal of transferring the knowledge to other contexts (Katz 2000) in preparation for later life (Quay 2015). This epistemology has been labelled as ‘Dualistic’ because it separates the knowledge about the world from those who learn it and views knowledge as consisting of a collection of facts, concepts and laws that can be transferred from one context to another (Affifi 2019; Holzman 1997). In contrast, scholars have described alternative epistemologies (Bang and Medin 2010; Pugh, McGinty, and Bang 2019), such as relational epistemologies, in which humans maintain relationships with animals, plants and inanimate objects, see them as subjects and perceive them in terms of ‘who’ and not ‘what’ (Bird-David 1999; Cajete 1994). In her studies, Bang showed how educational programs assimilate relational epistemology by using practices that nurture a personal and emotional relationship between learners and individual plants and relate to them as subjects, as well as parts of collective species (Bang and Medin 2010; Pugh, McGinty, and Bang 2019).

This study relies on the assumption that the teaching practices that educators employ reflect their underlying epistemology even if they are not explicitly aware of it (Bang and Medin 2010; Bekerman and Keller 2003; Katz 2000), and examines pedagogical practices in order to understand ‘what is knowledge’, and what does it mean ‘to know’ in FE. Specifically, as many FE practices involve the body and the senses in significant ways (Gurholt & Sanderud, 2016; Harris 2017; O’Brien 2009; Sanderud 2020), it is necessary to expand the understanding of sensory and embodied learning in ways that are not necessarily related to scientific thinking. The intention of this line of investigation is not to rule out other FE and OEE approaches, but rather to offer an analysis of implicit epistemologies as a means of better comparing and contrasting different ways to learn about nature.

Embodied learning and phenomenology

As mentioned, the centrality of the body in OEE implies that we ought to examine its role in learning processes beyond its depiction as supporting disciplinary knowledge. One important distinction is between embodied learning, in which learning lays within the body itself, and embodied cognition, where the body functions as a tool for learning abstract knowledge (Wilson and Foglia 2011), either cognitive or emotional. Researchers have emphasized that in order to achieve the aims of OEE, learning should not overly focus on embodied cognition, but prioritize embodied learning that includes all senses and significant physical engagement (Harris 2021; Payne and Wattchow 2009). Ingold (2000) claims that being in nature allows learners to dwell in it, a physical process in which individuals become skilled in paying attention to details in nature. Dwelling in nature reduces the dichotomy between objective and subjective knowledge and body and consciousness (Ingold 2000), and between ‘knowing’ and ‘doing’ (Affifi 2020; Quay 2015).

Focusing on the embodied skill of being in nature reframes the body’s role in teaching and learning as facilitating learning experiences that involve the natural environment without the necessity to reach abstract, symbolic and positivistic conceptions of nature (Payne and Wattchow 2009). This illustrates how the focus on the body challenges the prevailing epistemology in educational systems, which depicts knowledge as something transferable and disconnected from the learner or context (Bekerman and Keller 2003; Holzman 1997).

The notion of placing embodied experiences at the center of learning processes is prominent in the phenomenological philosophy of Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1982), according to which an understanding of the world is acquired through intimate bodily contact with the environment. Merleau-Ponty claims that consciousness is located within the body, and exploration and learning are inherently mediated by the body (Russon 1994). This does not eliminate the notions of generalization and abstraction per se, but rather highlights that this type of knowledge comes after our primordial ‘grasp’, which takes place within the body (Gordon and Tamari 2004). Several studies refer to phenomenological learning in OEE, especially with respect to the body’s role in shaping an experience’s meaning (Payne and Wattchow 2009; Pulkki, Dahlin, and Värri 2017; Thorburn and Marshall 2014), but their emphasis is on learners’ experiences rather that the epistemological shift in the body’s role in knowledge production.

Therefore, we suggest that to better articulate the unique characteristics of FE, we need to better account for its underlying epistemology in general, and the body role in ‘knowing’ more specifically.

Research context and methods

The study focused on a leading FE organization in Israel that offers nature programs for all ages, which include activities such as lighting bonfires, building shelters from natural resources, gathering plants, and primitive skills and crafts. The duration of programs ranges from a couple of hours to entire weekends, from a one-time seminar to a continuous yearlong class. The first author attended four full day meetings (overall 35 h) of one group of children aged 8–11 (15 children, 2 adults), that had been meeting weekly for an entire day for the past several years. The group instructors were both qualified as teachers and then began working as FE instructors. In addition, to better familiarize ourselves with the organization’s pedagogy and epistemology, the first author attended an Introduction Course for adults, which also serves as the first step for future instructors. This over-night three-day outdoors course (total of 65 h), offered us more direct insight into the instructors’ approach to teaching, including its underlying epistemology, which was rarely explicitly discussed while working with the children. We relied on this data to develop a more ‘Meta’ understanding of this FE strand.

Ethnography

Because FE aims to promote a physical connection between people and nature (Louv 2008; Sobel 2015), we relied on ethnographic methods that enable physical immersion in this context and thus a deeper understanding of the experience it offers (Gurholt and Sanderud 2016; Sanderud 2020). To authentically experience the carnal and sensory experiences in FE (Gurholt and Sanderud 2016; Sanderud 2020), the first author conducted participatory observation: playing with the children, learning with them and with his adult peers (e.g. how to make clay vessels and light a fire), and like them, facing the challenges of dwelling and observing nature. The first author wrote a field-diary² (Ruck and Mannion 2020, 2021) during and after observations both in the children’s group and the adults introduction course. In the children’s group, the field-diary focused on instructors’ teaching practices, students’ activities, and the author’s own bodily experiences and insights. In the introduction course, the field-diary described the author’s experiences and the instructor’s teaching practices, with an emphasis on instances in which they explicitly engaged with the organization’s pedagogy and epistemology. After the fieldwork ended, we invited the children’s group instructors to read the field-diary and interviewed them about their respective thoughts (Creswell and Poth 2016). The study was approved by the university ethics committee; adult participants (i.e. the instructors in both settings) and the children’s parents signed a consent form approving their participation. To ensure participants’ anonymity, we used pseudonyms and blurred other identifying details.

Epistemology is implied by a wide variety of actions and their interpretations, not necessarily in explicit words. While it is usually discussed in theoretical essays, it is not often articulated by educators. Therefore, many studies have examined epistemology through participant observation and ethnography, rather than decontextualized surveys and interviews (Bang and Medin 2010; Bekerman and Keller 2003; Bird-David 1999; Naveh, 2016; Pugh, McGinty, and Bang 2019). We followed this ethnographic tradition, aiming to characterize what is being taught in FE and what epistemology is implied by this. We took an ‘Ethic’ (Harris 1976; Pike 1967) point of view that emphasizes the researcher’s interpretation of what happens in the field.

We relied on Bang and Medin (2010) analysis of the relation between pedagogical practices and the epistemology that can be gleaned from them. We repeatedly read the field-diary from the two sites and interviews transcripts, searching for and focusing on ‘Rich Points’ (Agar 2004). Rich points expose differences in expectations and interpretation between the researcher and the participants, for example, the different meaning ascribed to the ‘Bat’ game (a forest version of the game ‘Marco polo’) by the first author and the instructors, as described in the Findings section below.

After a meticulous investigation of these ‘Rich points’, we identified recurring themes and practices, named them, and elaborated on the different interpretations they could have (Ruck and Mannion 2020). For instance, ‘Bat’ and several other games led to the broad theme of ‘Outdoor Play’ and activities like making clay pots and lighting a bonfire emerged as a theme labeled ‘Primitive Skills and Crafts’ (Pugh, McGinty, and Bang 2019). Finally, we examined our findings in light of what we saw in the adult group, where views on learning were made explicit, aiming to reveal the implicit epistemological assumptions about knowledge and learning. An example from the fieldnotes illustrate this notion:

During our attempts [to light a fire], while walking around, Amir [the instructor] noted that ‘the ideal is that I would give you a whole day to try to light a fire, but time is short and there are many more things to go through. [but] This is real learning, because it takes place in the ‘here and now’.

This iterative process enabled us to characterize FE’s pedagogical practices and the unique epistemology reflected by them.

In terms of the researchers’ position in the field, it is important to note that while the first author is an experienced OEE educator, none of us worked or were otherwise affiliated with FE, and our aim was to offer a critical analysis of this approach’s unique characteristics.

Findings

In what follows, we describe four core FE pedagogical practices: outdoor play, primitive skills and crafts, sensing, and dwelling. The analysis of these practices captures key aspects of their underlying epistemology.

Outdoor play

While play and games are common to many OEE approaches (Leather, Harper, and Obee 2021), where they often hold symbolic meaning (Leather and Gibson 2019), we found they were uniquely framed in our data. An example is the ‘Bat’ game, where one covered-eyes participant plays a Bat, trying to catch the others by calling them and hearing their answer (a forest version of the game ‘Marco-Polo’), as described in the fieldnotes:

The [Bat] game lasted for about an hour and during that time the “Bats” switched several times, but only when the Bat caught the entire group (or gave up while trying to do so), which made the game a bit tiring… [at the end of the day, after the kids left with their parents] we went back to the camp for the instructors’ summary of the day […] a big part of their conversation was about the “Bat” game and theplayers’ searching skills. Unlike the rest of the day, the instructors spoke critically about players’ skill and how good they were (or not…) in the game. I was surprised because my focus was on the kids’ excitement and participation and not on their playing skills.

On another occasion, when the group played Bat, the instructors praised the children for their excellent game skills and told them that ‘it was the team’s best Bat they could remember’.

In the pedagogy of many OEE approaches, games like Bat usually serve several goals: (a) expending energy; (b) empowerment focused on managing the challenge of blindness; (c) or illustrating a natural phenomenon, like bats’ sonar navigation. In contrast, the instructors’ feedback focused on how the game allowed participants to practice their movement skills, rather than as a precursor for abstract knowledge or social and emotional skills. They emphasized the quality of play at the group level, without referring to ideas or knowledge outside the situation. The duration of the game, almost one hour, is also evidence of its different use as it exceeds the usual time frame for a warmup activity. Gal, the instructor explained this in the interview:

I think that one of the things with us is the understanding that we don’t play to pass the time until ‘the thing’ or, when there is some time left. The game is the thing!

This reflects the importance FE attributes to play as an educational activity per se, and not as a means for goals beyond the game-situation.

Primitive skills and crafts

Practicing primitive skills and crafts emerged as a prominent FE activity, consisting of practices, like lighting a bonfire, outdoor cooking, tools crafting, art, and pottery, that imitate the techniques and ways-of-life of hunter-gatherer societies. The introduction course included an exhibition of craft pieces made by veteran members. It also conveyed an explicit demand to light a bonfire without the use of modern tools:

[Amir] prepared us that if we want to cook food, we will have to light the fire without using a lighter or matches. We received a short explanation about methods of lighting a fire without matches such as ignition by friction or by tapping flint stones against each other and we went out to try it ourselves. Amir noted that it’s better not to explain and that we need to experiment in order to learn.

This example shows how it was important for Amir, the chief instructor, to teach future instructors that learning is centered around carnal practices and not intellectual understandings.

Similarly, the children’s group held three successive sessions making clay cups from scratch. As in the case of outdoor play, making clay cups could afford multiple educational goals: personal development, teamwork, and learning scientific principles, historical knowledge and socio-cultural heritage. Yet the instructors highlighted the physical aspect of knowing, referring, for example, to the limits of their knowledge, as they can only explain in words what needed to be physically mastered: ‘I know how to say it but I still don’t know it in my hands’ (Yotam, the children’s instructor). Other instances also illustrated how the instructors viewed proper knowledge as residing within the children’s body and not in words or ‘in the world’, for example telling the children that ‘you have to feel it with your fingers’, and responding to a request for help ‘I can’t really help you, you have to feel it with your hands’.

In the interview following reading the fieldnotes, Yotam referred to embodied knowledge:

I read [in the fieldnotes] that I said you have to feel it in your hands, and I got excited, it sounded really beautiful. It sounded really beautiful to me. So I also tried to think about what it is, and it seems to me that when we say knowledge, we [know], I know, you know, I know there are stars there, but the knowledge is theoretical, but knowing how to do something is something else […] I can’t explain to you how to do it, and that’s what I told them. I know in my head how to do it but now I must translate this knowledge […] I need to do it a few more times so that I really know it […] For me to own it. That is, that it will be mine. To acquire it. That I would know it, literally, In my body. (Emphases in the original).

Yotam distinguished between theoretical knowledge one can talk about or explain to others, and ‘true knowledge’ located within the body and manifested through physical performance. While in the above case, this distinction aligns with common views on the difference between theoretical and practical knowledge, we now move to two more pedagogical practices that expose the unique meaning of ‘knowing’ in our data.

Sensing

Practicing bodily senses also received significant time and attention in the FE activity. On one occasion, during a one-hour period in the children’s group, two different activities centered on the act of seeing and observing. The first was spontaneous:

The group continued its way towards camp when suddenly a few children shouted “Look, mushrooms!” Instantly the whole group put down whatever they were holding and began to survey the ground in an attempt to find mushrooms. The task was not easy because the mushrooms were small and inconspicuous. The instructors encouraged the children to look […] After finding endless mushrooms, which at first glance we hardly noticed, we continued together to the camp.

As the group reached the camp, the instructors gave the group another observing task, this time a preplanned and personal one:

They reminded them that last week each of them found a sprout, observed, and examined it carefully and marked it with stones. They asked the children to return to the same sprout and check if it grew. The children went out to look for their sprouts, some found and observed it and some didn’t, so they were instructed to find a new sprout, observe it and mark it. This activity lasted thirty minutes and at the end, the instructors asked the children if there were any changes in the size of the sprout. To help them describe the growth, they asked and demonstrated with their hands the growth size of the plant.

In both examples, the fact that the instructors did not ask, suggest, or talk about anything beyond what they or the children saw was striking. The mushrooms provided the opportunity to ask many questions (e.g. ‘What can you make with these mushrooms?’ or ‘Why do they grow in this particular spot?’), but the instructors did not ask such questions, nor questions that could have promoted personal insights or cultivate groupwork. In the sprouts activity, the instructors asked questions, but they all dealt with what the children saw without any attempt to lead to insights beyond that. Moreover, discussing the growth of the sprouts, the instructors used their hands, rather than one of the many physical and conceptual tools they could have used, thus relinquishing the opportunity the activity offered to teach measuring skills. During the introduction course, instructors elaborated on the aim of such an emphasis on the senses:

We’ve gathered in a circle and talked about the use of senses and about how the use of multiple senses connects us to the ‘here and now’ because when we do so our entire body is involved in our experience of existence and in a way that deeply connects us to our surroundings, compared to using only the eyes.

In the interview, Gal (the children’s instructor) described how the emphasis on using the senses relate to a different way of knowing:

To work with a plants field guide is the rational: it’s white, it’s yellow, the flower [blossoms] in December […] we [the instructors] just want to make a connection. And a strong connection, the way I perceive it, is created by sensing, from the inside, not by the head.

Gal related to theoretical and rational learning versus learning through the body and the senses, arguing it creates a stronger experience and connection to nature.

Dwelling

The instructors’ intention to focus learning experiences on what goes on within the camp surroundings, which can also be referred to as ‘dwelling’, was repeated in many of the activities. One of the most common activities, and the only one that took place in every meeting, was the ‘connection activity’: the instructors sent the children to sit in an individual and permanent spot and observe nature around them. They specifically instructed them to watch and observe nature and not to contemplate or daydream, as described in the fieldnotes:

The instructors sent the children to a connection activity in their personal spots. They asked them to notice what happened there in the time that passed since the previous visit and to be with themselves and not with others during this time. […] We sat there for about twenty minutes with complete silence around us […] Yotam concluded the activity and asked the children “Who saw in his spot a new plant?”, about two-thirds of the group raised their hands. “And who heard the sounds of three different birds?”, again about two-thirds of the children in the group raised their hands. And at the end he asked, “and whose thoughts wandered and they couldn’t concentrate?”, about five or six hands were raised, including mine. From the tone of Yotam’s words, we were able to understand that although it is important to him that the children look carefully at the environment, he also wants to give room for the fact that they do not always succeed in doing so.

The instructors did not use the children’s descriptions to teach something new, but only to find out who was able to see or hear something. While we do not know whether the children actually saw a new plant or heard the sounds of three different birds, there was no doubt that they knew that such knowledge, listening and observing, was valued by the instructors. By allowing the children to fail in the exercise and acknowledging those who were unable to concentrate, the instructors conveyed that ‘dwelling’, the physical practice of spending considerate amounts of time solely paying attention to nature through observing and listening, is a challenging activity that requires skill and must be practiced. In addition, the emphasis on returning to one own’s permanent spot highlighted that dwelling is not limited to sensing nature, but also includes developing an intimate and personal relationship with it (specific plants, objects, etc.).

This process was explicitly discussed in the introduction course, when Amir, the chief instructor, explained its importance:

In an unmediated connection to nature, the name of plants or animals is less interesting; to learn and connect, you have to touch and listen to them.

Discussion: the emerging characteristics of a Forest Education epistemology

Abstaining from abstraction and generalization

To better understand forest education, we followed studies that characterized the epistemology of institutions and social groups through an ethnographic approach (Bang and Medin 2010; Bekerman and Keller 2003; Katz 2000; Naveh 2016; Pugh, McGinty, and Bang 2019). Our findings indicate that the epistemology of the FE strand we studied is markedly different from the prevailing epistemology in many other OEE and conventional educational contexts. The epistemology underlying these pedagogies is often characterized as one whose main purposes are sorting, abstraction, generalization and transfer of knowledge from one context to another (Affifi 2020; Bekerman and Keller 2003; Bird-David 1999; Katz 2000). Although at first sight, FE practices might look similar to those of other OEE contexts (i.e. playing games, crafts, spotting plants), an emphasis on epistemology reveals that what is taught in FE may serve distinctly different intentions. Namely, seeking to suspend the processes of abstraction and generalization and focus on learners’ primordial experiences, in the context (place and time) in which they take place. Therefore, our findings demonstrate the contribution of exploring epistemological features and articulating the rationale and objectives underpinning practices that on the surface appear familiar.

Consider, for example, the ‘Bat’ game. Play is commonly used as an opening activity whose purpose is to expend children’s energy or as a metaphor for another abstract principle (e.g. bats’ sonar navigation). Put differently, the educational value of play lies primarily in its capacity to advance scientific, emotional, or social learning goals that are beyond the actual game (Leather, Harper, and Obee 2021; Leather and Gibson 2019). But in our findings, conduct during the ‘Bat’ game is itself valued because it teaches how to move in space and how to feel the environment and those around you. Instructors emphasize the importance of the movement and physical sensation of the environment and not knowledge outside the situation.

Another example of focusing on ‘here and now’ can be found in the mushroom searching activity. This activity offered ample opportunities for intellectual investigation and engagement with abstract concepts and knowledge. Yet, the instructors (who were both qualified teachers) emphasized a different type of knowledge. In other FE strands, learning often takes place ‘through’ the body, and knowledge is demonstrated or constructed by performing an activity (Harris 2021; Leather 2018; Payne and Wattchow 2009; Waite, Bølling, and Bentsen 2016) rather than manipulating language or symbolic means (as is customary in schools; Lynch and Law 1999; Sefton-Green 2012). More broadly, these OEE bodily practices are aimed at cognitive goals, such as identifying plant species, or social-emotional goals, such as developing teamwork skills (Harris 2017; Lavie Alon and Tal 2017; Leather and Gibson 2019; O’Brien 2009; Tal, Alon, and Morag 2014). In our findings, activities like observing nature and playing in the natural environment were oriented mainly towards knowing within the body and the primordial experience of the environment.

Embodied knowledge

Delaying and abstaining from abstraction and focusing on bodily experiences connect to the phenomenological philosophy of Merleau-Ponty (Gordon and Tamari 2004; Merleau-Ponty 1982; Ihde and Selinger 2004), according to which, understanding of the environment is acquired during intimate contact of the body with the world. In our findings the physical body had a significant role in the process of perceiving and understanding the world. This is reflected through the long time spent playing games and the instructors’ minimal verbal guidance during bonfire lighting exercise, the clay work and the mushrooms searching. The instructors’ choice to focus their teaching on the body and senses, and not on explaining or developing ideas about what is seen, implies that knowledge is found in the initial bodily experience and not in the resulting conclusions. This, in turn, emphasizes the body’s role in ‘knowing’ the world. Knowledge is constructed experientially and directly, without pretense of reaching intellectual insights. Therefore, it can be said that from this perspective, knowledge and understanding of the world are found in the moment of the primordial bodily experience (Merleau-Ponty 1982). The instructors’ choices show that not only is the body the primary tool for negotiating meaning in the world, but it is also the most appropriate way to understand and interpret it (Merleau-Ponty 1964). Thus, this epistemology prioritizes direct interactions with nature over analytical thinking that turns elements of nature from subjects to objects.

Conclusion

This paper set out to characterize the epistemology of an FE strand and distinguish it from other OEE approaches. Despite the limitations of generalizing from this case, this paper contributes to a more diversified theoretical conceptualization of the different approaches to FE, like the English ‘forest schools’ and the Danish ‘Udeskole’ (Leather 2018; Waite, Bølling, and Bentsen 2016), yielding practical implications. The research findings revealed practices that reflect an epistemology in which knowledge is primordial to intellectual thinking (Merleau-Ponty 1982), situated in the immediate context and experienced through the body. This FE’s strand epistemology relinquishes abstraction, generalization and transfer, which are the common aims in educational contexts that focus on more scientifically oriented pedagogies (Affifi 2020; Bekerman and Keller 2003; Holzman 1997). By centering on bodily actions and sensory experiences, this FE’s teaching practices and knowledge perceptions lead to the creation of a deep and holistic sense of connection with nature (Appel 2021; Gordon and Tamari 2004; Leather 2018).

This study also highlights four core pedagogical practices that reflect this FE’s unique epistemology: (a) outdoor play; (b) primitive skills and crafts; (c) sensing activities; and (d) dwelling in nature. Although the connection between Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology and FE has been previously proposed (Payne and Wattchow 2009; Pulkki, Dahlin, and Värri 2017; Thorburn and Marshall 2014), our emphasis on the epistemological dimensions of FE, and not solely on the experience of the body in the environment, highlights the different nature of the knowledge and knowing in this FE strand.

In the context of OEE, the insights from this study promote the ability to unpack and conceptualize the ways in which different OEE approaches seek to ‘know’, and their depiction of the environment and connection to nature. Thus, the main contribution of this study is emphasizing the theoretical-philosophical ‘roots’ of a strand of FE and demonstrating how an epistemology that suspends abstraction, generalization and transfer, aligns with the goals of OEE, emphasizing an emotional connection to nature and reducing the dichotomy between humans and their environment (Grimm et al. 2011; Kowasch et al. 2022). According to Gordon and Tamari (2004), knowledge constructed in such processes also creates partnership and reciprocity relations between the body and the world and allows individuals to feel and perceive how they are involved and connected to the world. In this respect, this study joins Leather’s (2018) call for advancing the understanding and educational theory of forest education that aims to promote intimate and deep connection to nature (Kowasch et al. 2022; Naess 1990).

Disclosure statement

The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the ‘Jewish national fund’ (JNF) under Grant _ 80-02-077-22.

Notes

1 Some authors use slightly different terms like ‘outdoor learning’, ‘outdoor education’ or ‘environmental and sustainability education’. To Avoid overloading with acronyms and terms we use OEE throughout the manuscript.

2 Because of the nature-oriented activity, electronic recording was not permitted.