See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/351333664

Outdoor Learning in Early Childhood Education A Narrative Review

Article · April 2021

CITATION READS

1 2,103

6 authors, including:

Eila Lindfors Marja-Leena Rönkkö

University of Turku University of Turku
56 PUBLICATIONS 269 CITATIONS 49 PUBLICATIONS 242 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Leena Kiviranta Virpi Yliverronen

University of Turku University of Turku
1 PUBLICATION 1 CITATION 15 PUBLICATIONS 57 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Enterprise education in Craft education View project

Safety and security in education View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Eila Lindfors on 04 May 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 PATT38 Rauma, Finland 2021 – Section IV
Technology Education in Early Childhood

Outdoor Learning in Early Childhood Education

A Narrative Review

Eila Lindfors, Marja-Leena Rönkkö, Leena Kiviranta, Virpi Yliverronen,

Saija Tanhuanpää and Satu Grönman

Outdoor learning environments can be beneficial in enhancing children’s engagement and motivation
in different activities. Outdoor learning environments have the potential to enable transforming and
meaningful experiences with imagination and play as well as to evoke ideas for craft, design, and
technology education. This study aims to describe outdoor learning implementation in early childhood
education based on previous studies. For this, the following research question is addressed: What are
the typical opportunities and challenges in implementing outdoor learning in early childhood
education? The answer is discussed in accordance with craft, design, and technology education in early
childhood. The methodological approach of this study is a narrative review. The data includes 10 peer-
reviewed journal articles and book chapters, which were categorized into six categories: All-around
development of children, Well-being, Multimodal hands-on learning possibilities, Nature as a resource,
Teachers as mediators, and Organization. From the basis of the results, it seems obvious that carrying
out CDT projects as outdoor learning would benefit children’s all-around development and well-being
as well as enhance their multimodal hands-on learning opportunities. The results can be taken as a
basis for researchers to plan an empirical study in outdoor contexts. They can also serve teachers as
they plan a technology learning project in an outdoor environment with their younger students and
teacher training in outdoor environments.

Keywords: outdoor learning environment, early childhood education, craft design and technology
education, narrative review

Introduction
It has been noticed that people stay inside too much and lose their connection to nature. This is
problematic since there is a strong connection between nature and human well-being. For children,
handling natural materials and having a connection to their micro-organisms is also important from the
immunity viewpoint (Roslund et. al., 2020). Outdoor learning has undisputed benefits for physical and
mental well-being (Humberstone & Stan, 2011). Traditionally, learning in craft, design, and technology
(CDT) education has been organized in indoor settings since materials, tools, machines, and other
equipment are usually stored and used inside. Furthermore, safety culture and rules in inside working
stations and with tools are important in preventing incidents and accidents. The influence of a learning
environment on children’s technology projects is crucial since it is one precondition for creativity
(Bodrova & Leong, 2015) and is an intrinsic factor that enhances innovative work (Sheridan et al., 2014).

One of the main objectives in the Finnish curriculum for early childhood education (FNBE, 2016) is to
promote children’s interest in society, especially the local community, and to strengthen their
involvement with their own environment. The curriculum emphasises enhancing children’s interest in
science and technology and in creative designing and making. Technology education for young children
can be seen as a wide-ranging and practical hands-on activity that shares common goals with other
learning areas (FNBE, 2016), especially with crafts. The learning areas include designing, creative
problem solving, examining and experimenting with structures and materials, constructing (making),
and reflection on the process and products. Children in early childhood education are encouraged to
figure out and build various solutions to their own, self-found technological problems using versatile
156
Techne Series A: 28(2), 2021 156–165
 PATT38 Rauma, Finland 2021 – Section IV
Technology Education in Early Childhood

materials (FNBE, 2016; Turja, 2011; Yliverronen, 2019). In these learning processes children create
personal and unique outputs. These processes enable them to use their own experiences, knowledge, and
observations while completing assignments (Aerila, et. al., 2019). Thinking processes, designing, and
hands-on making form a new perception of technology via self-made solutions for learning assignments
and tasks.

Young children’s learning is holistic, and they learn by playing, moving, exploring, working on different
assignments, expressing themselves, and through versatile activities (FNBE, 2016). Children learn about
the world around them best through what they experience, not through what they are told (Rönkkö et.
al., 2016). They are typically interested in small-scale observations and investigations such as nature
phenomenon (e.g., animals and water), observing real-world technological solutions and their
functionality, examining phenomenon related to nature and technology, and making artefacts because
of their experiences (Rönkkö et al., 2021). Playful exploration is inherent in all young children’s
activities (Stylianidou et al., 2018). Through play and exploratory activities the child seeks information
about him/herself and the phenomena of the world around him or her (Bodrova & Leong, 2015).
Teachers promote children’s ability and understanding of technological phenomena to find solutions to
various problems of interest (Sundqvist & Nilsson, 2018).

In educational settings an outdoor environment is usually considered an outside (non-inside, out of

classroom) environment like a forest, a park or a playground (see e.g., Finn et al., 2018), a special
outdoor learning centre (Humberstone & Stan, 2011), as well as a field trip (Mellvig & Nilsson, 2015)
or rural environment (Duron-Ramos, et al., 2021). The studies on outdoor learning can also deal with
nature schools or forest schools where students stay one day or longer and learn with teachers that are
nature experts (Sjöblom & Svens, 2019). The outdoor learning environment is an informal environment
that is based on authentic experiences. It increases children's opportunities to feel, smell, see, hear and
taste (Wilson, 2012). In this study, we define outdoor learning as authentic learning implemented in
natural outdoor environment, e.g., a forest, a park, a school yard or a playground where children can
move, play, design and investigate actively and craft and construct to express their ideas in a form of
practical solutions. We ask if the CDT education projects in early childhood education could be carried
out as outdoor learning.

The latest research indicates that nature may increase general human well-being and health. Natural
environments have a calming effect, reduce stress, and promote vitality, creativity, and positivity. Even
short-term visits to nature have positive effects on stress relief compared to urban environments.
(Tyrväinen et al., 2014). In addition, visiting nature can lower pulse rate and blood pressure, reduce
cortisol levels and enhance parasympathetic nervous activity (Lee et al., 2012). The biodiversity
hypothesis states, that contact with natural environments enriches the human microbiome, protects from
allergy and inflammatory disorders, and promotes immune balance. It encourages people to be in the
nature, to touch, eat, breathe, experience, and enjoy it for health and well-being reasons (Haahtela, 2019)
The related research shows an example of a biodiversity intervention where enrichment from day care
centre yards for microbial biodiversity enhanced children’s immune regulation and was associated with
changes in the skin and gut microbiota in a month (Roslund et al., 2020). Nedovic and Morrissey (2013)
also found that children’s physical activity increased in the mulched area that replaced the concrete path.

Many raw materials that can be used in early childhood CDT education come from nature, e.g., pieces
of wood, sticks, stones, leaves, ice, and sand. A technology learning project topic and theme could be,
for example, how to help animals reach their nests safely after food seeking. By inventing a solution, a
child experiences a technology creation process through ideation, problem definition and solving it by
hands-on work that integrates technical details and parts of a systemic solution (Grönman & Lindfors,
in press). To allow children authentic learning experiences where they can investigate, for example,
ants’ routes to their nests, the learning project must be carried out in nature as child-centered, situated
learning that is based on and emphasizes social interaction between learners and their environment (Lave
& Wenger, 1991). Then, knowledge is presented in an authentic environment instead of a classroom and
the learning is embedded within activity, context, and culture. Situated learning contains the idea of
157
Techne Series A: 28(2), 2021 156–165
 PATT38 Rauma, Finland 2021 – Section IV
Technology Education in Early Childhood

moving learning closer to real life’s phenomena (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Lombardy, 2007; Vartiainen,
2014). This appears in learning by doing and experiential learning, which is considered one of the most
effective ways to learn (Kolb & Kolb, 2018; Lombardy, 2007).

This study is part of the InnoPlay 2018–2021 research and development project that aims to enhance
CDT education in early childhood education. In the project there is an ongoing sub-project aiming to
advance early childhood education CDT projects outdoors (Innoplay). This study aims to identify and
describe the typical challenges and opportunities of outdoor learning implementation in early childhood
education, based on the previous studies. For this, the following research question is addressed: What
are the typical opportunities and challenges in implementing outdoor learning in early childhood
education? The finding are discussed in accordance with craft, design and technology education in early
childhood.

Method
The methodological approach of this study is a narrative literature review (see e.g., Grant & Booth,
2009; Snyder, 2019). This approach was chosen to provide a pilot synthesis of the previous studies and
outline the connections, synergies, and dissonances across the different perspectives of outdoor learning
and CDT education. The data, 10 peer-reviewed journal articles, were gathered via Volter, the electronic
library database of the University of Turku. The keywords used to identify the articles were “outdoor
learning”, “technology education” and “early childhood education”. Through the keyword search and a
careful sorting process, the ten most relevant articles for this study was chosen. Due to the pilot nature
of the study, the number of articles meeting the keyword criteria were moderate and the search did not
include limitations by language or publishing years. The rarity of the context of early childhood
education helped the sorting process for identifying the most relevant sources for this study. Most of the
selected articles studied teachers’ views on outdoor learning (1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8) and in some (1, 2, 3,
5, 9 and 10) children’s view was also included. In this study, we do not distinguish between early
childhood education and pre-primary education.

Table 1. The research data.

Authors Title
1. Boileau & Dabaja Forest School practice in Canada: a survey study
(2020)
2. Dowdell, Gray & Nature and its influence on children´s outdoor play
Malone (2021)
3. Harris (2017) Outdoor learning spaces: The case of forest school
4. McClintic & Petty Exploring early childhood teachers’ beliefs and practices about preschool
(2015) outdoor play: A qualitative study
5. Nedovic & Calm active and focused: Children’s responses to an organic outdoor learning
Morrissey (2013) environment
6. Sandven (2019) Å kjenne seg i slekt med jorden. Natursløyd og økosofi i fremtidens
tverrfaglige skole
7. Tuuling, Õun & Teachers’ opinions on utilizing outdoor learning in the preschools of Estonia
Ugaste (2019)
8. Vartiainen, Teacher´s insights into connected learning networks: Emerging activities and
Nissinen, Pöllänen forms of participation
& Vanninen (2018)
9. Yildirim & Akamca The effect of outdoor learning activities on the development of preschool
(2017) children
10. Zamani (2016) The woods is a more free space for children to be creative; their imagination
kind of sparks out there:.Exploring young children’s cognitive play
opportunities in natural, manufactured and mixed outdoor preschool zones.

158
Techne Series A: 28(2), 2021 156–165
 PATT38 Rauma, Finland 2021 – Section IV
Technology Education in Early Childhood

The selected articles (Table 1) were systematically reviewed and monitored. The challenges and
opportunities of outdoor learning in early childhood education, presented in the selected articles, were
identified and themed into a table by using a qualitative data-based content analysis (Krippendorff,
2019) and more detailed a document analysis (Bowen, 2009). The challenges and opportunities were
divided into subcategories using an inductive categorization and named (Elo et. al., 2014). Finally, the
subcategories were integrated into six categories that were identified to describe the challenges and
opportunities of outdoor leaning implementation in early childhood education.

Results
The opportunities and challenges of implementing outdoor education in early childhood were
categorized into six categories: All-around development of children, Well-being, Multimodal hands-on
learning possibilities, Nature as a resource, Teachers as mediators, and Organization (Table 2). In Table
2 the categories are presented one by one and opportunities and challenges of each category are specified
by subcategories.

Table 2. Opportunities and challenges of implementing outdoor education in early childhood

education. Note that some categories were seen as both opportunities and challenges. The
differences are clarified in the text below this table.

Sub-category: Opportunities of Categories of outdoor Sub-category: Challenges of

outdoor learning learning imple mentation outdoor learning
Social and personal development of All-around developme nt of Social and personal development of
children children children
Holistic development Holistic development
Enhancement of health and activity Well-being
Enhancement of joy and satisfaction
Enhancement of creativity Multimodal hands-on
Use of senses learning opportunities
Hands-on learning
Learning about nature Nature as a resource Restrictions in use of materials
Materials in nature
Teacher’s role in outdoor learning Teachers as mediators Teacher’s role in outdoor learning
Lack of knowledge and motivation in
use of outdoor environments
Space and equipment Organization Space and equipment
Safety, prevention, and weather

All-around development of children in outdoor learning

All-around development of children in outdoor learning is made up of two subcategories of opportunities
and challenges: Social and personal development, and Holistic development of children. In several
studies (5, 7, 10) it was emphasized that outdoor learning provides access to the natural environment
which enhances natural opportunities for social interactions and play. It was stated that natural
environments encourage creating interaction during practical, hands-on activities and social competence
can be developed in teams. This was recognised to relax the relationship between children of various
age groups in early childhood education. In addition, it was stated that the natural environment
stimulated children’s teamwork, sense of responsibility, competence and significantly enhanced
children’s social-emotional skills.

159
Techne Series A: 28(2), 2021 156–165
 PATT38 Rauma, Finland 2021 – Section IV
Technology Education in Early Childhood

Holistic development of children is the other subcategory of all-round development in outdoor learning
implementation. The studies (9, 10) emphasized that children’s cognitive skills, linguistic skills and
motor skills were enhanced significantly after the several weeks of outdoor education since the natural
environment was stimulating. Teachers mentioned (10) that the outdoor space created different
educational opportunities for children, enabling them to learn about their bodies, their surroundings and
science. Being in nature and doing collaborative craft outdoors was seen to help a child create their own
“ecosophy” by experiencing and being conscious of the power of nature and its artefacts (6). This was
seen as creating different educational opportunities for children, enabling them to learn about their
bodies, their surroundings, and science (10).

The challenges of outdoor learning implementation were mostly considered by teachers’ in relation to
children’s all-around development. Although studies showed that outdoor learning strengthens
children’s diverse growth, several teachers (7) did not emphasize its importance in supporting children’s
social and personal development and did not consider a broader influence of outdoor activities according
to aspects of health and welfare.

Well-being in outdoor learning

This category was understood only from the side of opportunities: Promoting health and activity , and
Promoting joy and satisfaction. It was emphasized that being outdoors increased a healthy lifestyle (7)
and calmed and relaxed children (5). It was stated that learning in nature increased activeness of children.
Children were more active in moving, playing and participating in learning tasks. They seemed to learn
more easily outdoors (7). The sub-category of promoting joy and satisfaction was seen to strengthen
self-confidence and self-esteem. It was stated that enhancing children’s curiosity, sense of freedom and
sense of wonder can be raised with inspiring materials from nature (10).

Multimodal hands-on learning opportunities in outdoor learning

The analysis of the category was formed on the basis of three opportunity subcategories: a) Enhancement
of creativity, b) Use of senses, and c) Hands-on learning. Awaking an interest to enhance children’s
creativity in outdoor learning was recognized as a main goal of teachers. The experienced teachers
believed that nature raises children’s curiosity with seasonal change and the flexibility of natural
features. They also gave credence to the power of observation and inquiry-based activities for provoking
children’s imagination and fantasy (2). Teachers considered the diversity of plants and creatures
inspiring of children’s curiosity and imagination (10).

According to the data, one emphasis of outdoor learning was to motivate children to use all of their
senses in the immediate exploration, testing and observation of nature. At the same time natural
materials were seen usable in integrating different functions, creating experiments, drawing, writing,
calculating, and measuring (7). The main recommendation was for children to touch, do and move (10)
and use their senses by studying, testing, and observing (7). Further, children were encouraged to
experience their environment with their hands even if their hands would get dirty (2). Learning outdoors
was seen to reduce children’s risk behavior, which could develop children’s risk awareness (10).

The hands-on learning sub-category emphasized making and doing in practice and getting authentic
experiences in outdoor learning. Child-centred, inquiry-based activities and imagination were seen as
benefitting children in problem-solving and creative thinking through practical actions and experiences
and by directly interacting with what they learn about. (2, 7, 9).

160
Techne Series A: 28(2), 2021 156–165
 PATT38 Rauma, Finland 2021 – Section IV
Technology Education in Early Childhood

Nature as a resource of learning

The category of Nature as a resource of learning included an opportunity of learning about nature and
use of materials in nature. The diversity of natural environments was seen to provide a rich setting for
exploration and discovery of nature, and it stimulated complex and exiting play opportunities for
children (4, 7). Teacher´s commented that seasonal changes did contribute to better knowledge about
nature (10). Being in nature also increased children´s respect towards nature and their environmental
awareness (1, 6).

The use of natural materials such as trees, bushes, woodchips, plants, stones, water, ice, rocks and sand
was seen as a rich opportunity (2, 7, 10). Natural materials inspired children´s creativity and cognitive
play. Playing with natural materials also slowed children´s play down and led to more frequent, deeper
and longer lasting play (5). Children themselves wanted to have more often plants, water, soil or mud
instead of non-natural elements such as commercial toys in the garden (5). Teachers also preferred to
have more organic materials and less synthetic materials in the garden including the replacement of a
concrete path with tan bark mulch (5) Teachers also mentioned that the natural materials gave the
possibility of direct contact with nature (7). As a challenge, there were some restrictions in use of the
natural materials related to the season and permissions for taking them. Children could also destroy
some plants and bushes (5, 6).

Teachers as mediators of outdoor learning

This category highlighted Teacher’s roles in outdoor learning. According to studies (2, 8) teachers play
an essential role in supporting children´s motivation and interest in outdoor environment. A stimulating
teacher with good teaching strategies was seen to be capable of awakening children´s love and
excitement towards nature and the outdoor environment. In particular, children with disabilities or those
who were usually uninterested in studying participated with enthusiasm in an outdoor project (8). The
teacher’s role in outdoor learning was recognized to be as a mediator or facilitator that enables learning
with the child by acquiring knowledge together with the children. Working outdoors challenged teachers
to develop their way of being in relationships with children (7). A teacher had to be supportive, available
and rely on a child´s own decisions when children were actively engaged with the space and elements.
The teacher´s role was seen as being to encourage, stimulate and provide feedback.

Teachers’ lack of knowledge and motivation in use of outdoor environments hindered outdoor activities.
It was acknowledged that teachers were used to teaching indoors, and this method of working was hard
to change (4, 7). Teachers identified their own childhood outdoor play memories: virtues of freedom,
creativity, and imagination. However, a lack of knowledge and experience appeared in many ways:
teachers´ indolence, inconvenience, and their lack of will and motivation. Some teachers mentioned that
it was more difficult to organize group work outdoors, and that preparation and planning takes too much
time. Although teachers valued the outdoors for the opportunities it provides for interaction, exploration
and hands-on learning, their understanding was quite narrow.

Organization of outdoor learning

The category was formed of sub-categories of Space and equipment, and Safety, prevention and weather.
It was emphasized that the natural environment offers various spaces where different learning styles and
activities, and also calming atmospheres, are permitted without need for special learning equipment (3,
7). It was stated that children concentrated better outdoors and were more receptive to learning. Learning
space and equipment allowed learning with open-ended tasks and inquiry-based activities.

Challenges in the organization of outdoor learning seemed to be the lack of separate areas for activities,
study aids for all children and outdoor environments as learning spaces (3, 4, 7). In addition, noise and
traffic could make it difficult to implement outdoor learning activities effectively (7). It was stated that
161
Techne Series A: 28(2), 2021 156–165
 PATT38 Rauma, Finland 2021 – Section IV
Technology Education in Early Childhood

safety and risk prevention meant a need for increased awareness by teachers, for example during risky
outdoor activities, such as using tools (e.g., knives), building fires, and climbing trees. Sometimes
teaching was disturbed because children’s attention was easily distracted. One teacher’s point of view
was that going outside into nature took too much time and it was hard to organize teaching outdoors (1).
It seemed that bad weather is a factor that hinders the use of outdoor learning, and that outdoor learning
depended on the seasons.

Conclusions
The aim of the study was to identify and describe the typical challenges and opportunities of outdoor
learning implementation in early childhood education. The categories formed in the analysis (Table 2)
describe the opportunities and challenges in relation to children’s all-around development and well-
being. It was found that outdoor learning environments provide a space for multimodal hands-on
learning where children can use their senses and enhance their creativity (e.g., Tuuling et. al., 2019).
Nature as a resource for learning was seen as offering a possibility to learn about nature and use natural
materials (e.g., Zamani, 2016; Tuuling et. al., 2019). When teachers acted as mediators, they facilitated
children’s curiosity, experimentation and investigation in problem solving (e.g., Dowdell et. al., 2011;
Vartiainen et. al., 2018). However, teachers did not always promote outdoor learning since they lacked
knowledge and motivation and did not consider outdoor learning benefits from the children’s all-around
development point of view (e.g., McClintic & Petty, 2015; Tuuling et. al., 2019) Safety issues were
considered as challenges as well as the suitability of natural spaces, and use of equipment and materials
(Boileau & Dabaja, 2020). From the basis of the results, it seems obvious that carrying out CDT projects
as outdoor learning would benefit children’s all-around development and wellbeing as well as enhance
their multimodal hands-on learning opportunities.

This pilot study was based on a narrative review of ten peer-review research articles as document data
and involved the categorisation of authentic phrases from the research results of the studies. Evidently,
CDT education organized as outdoor learning would help with reaching the goals of curriculum (FNBE,
2016). However, there is a need for more studies to increase the current level of understanding of outdoor
learning especially from CDT education point of view. Some teachers seem to lack the motivation and
knowledge of how to implement outdoor learning and they are concerned about spaces and equipment
as challenges (Table 2). In CDT education there is a need for tools and materials to be used together
with natural materials in outdoor learning. It seems that there is need for including outdoor learning as
a content area for teachers’ pre-service and in-service training.

References
Aerila, J.-A., Rönkkö, M.-L. & Grönman, S. (2019). Arts-Based activities and stories convey children’s learning
experiences In K.J. Kerry-Moran & J.-A. Aerila (Eds.) Story in Children’s Lives: Contributions of the
Narrative Mode to Early Childhood Development, Literacy, and Learning (pp. 333–354). New York:
Springer.
Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (2015). Vygotskian and Post-Vygotskian views on children’s play. American
Journal of Play, 7(3), 371–388.
Boileau, E., & Dabaja, Z. (2020). Forest School practice in Canada: a survey study. Journal of Outdoor and
Environmental Education 23, 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42322-020-00057-4
Bowen, G. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–
40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Dowdell, K., Gray, T. & Malone, K. (2011). Nature and its influence on children’s outdoor play. Journal of
Outdoor and Environmental Education, 15, 24–35. https://doi-org.ezproxy.utu.fi/10.1007/BF03400925
Duron-Ramos, M.F., Collado, S., García-Vázquez, F.I. & Bello-Echeverria, M. (2021) The role of urban/rural
environments on Mexican children’s connection to nature and pro-environmental behavior. In S. Pirchio,
B.S. Fraijo-Sing, Y. Passiatore (Eds.) Where to raise happy and skilled children: How environment shapes

162
Techne Series A: 28(2), 2021 156–165
 PATT38 Rauma, Finland 2021 – Section IV
Technology Education in Early Childhood

human development and education (pp. 67–72). Lausanne: Frontiers Media SA. https://doi.org/10.3389/978-
2-88966-391-0
Finn, K. E., Yan, Zi. & McInnis, K. J. (2018). Promoting physical activity and science learning in an outdoor
education program. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 89(1), 35–39.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07303084.2017.1390506?scroll=top&needAccess=true
FNBE. (2016). Finnish National Board of Education, national core curriculum for early childhood education
and care 2016. Helsinki: FNBE.
Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngäs, H. (2014). Qualitative content analysis:
A focus on trustworthiness. SAGE Open, 4(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014522633
Grant, M., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an anal ysis of 14 review types and associated
methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-
1842.2009.00848.x
Grönman, S. & Lindfors, E. (accepted). The process models of design thinking. Differences and similarities.
Techne Series: Research in Sloyd Education and Craft Science.
Haahtela, T. (2019). A biodiversity hypothesis. Allergy, 74(8), 1445–1456. https://doi.org/10.1111/all.13763
Harris, F. (2087). Outdoor learning spaces: The case of forest school. Area, 50, 222–231.
https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12360
Humberstone, B. & Stan, I. (2011). Outdoor learning: primary pupils' experiences and teachers' interaction in
outdoor learning, Education 3–13, 39(5), 529–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2010.487837
InnoPlay. Retrieved January 15, 2021 https://blogit.utu.fi/innoplay/
Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology (Fourth Edition.). SAGE.
Kolb, A. & Kolb, D. (2018). Eight important things to know about The Experiential Learning Cycle. ACEL
National Conference 2018. Australian Educational Leader 3.
https://www.acel.org.au/ACEL/ACELWEB/Publications/AEL/2018/3/Lead_Article_1.aspx
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Leavy, P. (2017). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, arts‐based, and community‐based
participatory research approaches. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Lee, J., Li, Q., Tyrväinen, L., Tsunetsugu, Y., Park, B.-J., Kagawa, T., & Miyazaki, Y. (2012). Nature therapy
and preventive medicine. In J. Maddock (Ed.), Public health. Social and behavioral health (pp. 325–350).
http://doi.org/10.5772/37701
Liljeström, A., Enkenberg, J., & Pöllänen, S. (2012). Making learning whole: an instructional approach for
mediating the practices of authentic science inquiries. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 8(1), 51–86.
Lombardy, M.M. (2007). Authentic learning for the 21st century: An overview. In D.G. Oblinger (Ed.) ELI
Papers and Reports, EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (ELI) (pp. 1–12), ELI Papers and Reports Reports
http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI3009.pdf .
Mellvig, S. & Nilsson, A. (2015). Outdoor learning contra indoor learning. International Journal for Lesson and
Learning Studies, 4(2). https://www-emerald-com.ezproxy.utu.fi/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJLLS-12-
2014-0047/full/html
McClintic, S. & Petty, K. (2015). Exploring early childhood teachers’ beliefs and practices about preschool
outdoor play: A qualitative study. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 36(1), 24 –43.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2014.997844
Nedovic, S. & Morrissey, A.-M. (2013). Calm active and focused: Children’s responses to an organic outdoor
learning environment. Learning Environment Research, 16(2), 281–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-013-
9127-9
Roslund, M.I., Puhakka, R., Grönroos, M., Nurminen, N., Oikarinen, S., Gazali, A.M., Cinek, O, Kramná, L.,
Siter, N., Vari, H.K., Soininen, L., Parajuli, A., Rajaniemi, J., Kinnunen, T., Laitinen, O.H., Hyöty, H.,
Sinkkonen, A. & ADELE research group. (2020). Biodiversity intervention enhances immune regulation and
health-associated commensal microbiota among daycare children. Science Advanced 6(42).
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba2578
Rönkkö, M.-L., Yliverronen, V., & Kangas, K. (2021). Investigative activity in pre-primary technology
education–The Power Creatures project. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 26(1),
29–44.
163
Techne Series A: 28(2), 2021 156–165
 PATT38 Rauma, Finland 2021 – Section IV
Technology Education in Early Childhood

Rönkkö, M.-L., Aerila, J.-A. & Grönman, S. (2016). Creative Inspiration for Preschoolers from Museums.
International Journal of Early Childhood, 48(1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-016-0159-z
Sandven, J. (2019). Å kjenne seg i slekt med jorden. Natursløyd og økosofi i fremtidens tverrfaglige skole.
[Experiencing and feeling the nature. Nature sloyd and ecophilosophy in the interdisciplinary school of
future.] Techne Series: Research in Sloyd Education and Craft Science A, 26(1), 65–92.
Sheridan, K., Halverson, E. R., Litts, B., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L., & Owens, T. (2014). Learning in the
making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 505–531.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.brr34733723j648u
Sjöblom, P. & Svens, M. (2019). Learning in the Finnish outdoor classroom: Pupils’ views. Journal of
Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 19(4), 301–314,
https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2018.1531042
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of
Business Research, 104, 333–339.
Stylianidou, F., Glaert, E., Rossis, D., Compton, A., Cremin, T., Craft, A., & Havu-Nuutinen, S. (2018).
Fostering inquiry and creativity in early years STEM education: Policy recommendations from the Creative
Little Scientists Project. European Journal of STEM Education, 3(3), 15.
https://doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/3875
Sundqvist, P., & Nilsson, T. (2018). Technology education in preschool: providing opportunities for children to
use artifacts and to create. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(1), 29–51.
Turja, L. (2011). Teknologiakasvatus varhaisvuosina. [Technology education in early years]. In E. Hujala & L.
Turja (eds.), Varhaiskasvatuksen käsikirja [Handbook of Early Childhood education] (pp. 195–207). PS-
kustannus.
Tuuling, L., Õun, T. & Ugaste, A. (2019). Teachers’ opinions on utilizing outdoor learning in the preschools of
Estonia. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 19(4), 358-370.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2018.1553722
Tyrväinen, L., Ojala, A., Korpela, K., Lanki, T., Tsunetsugu, Y., & Kagawa, T. (2014). The influence of urban
green environments on stress relief measures: A field experiment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38,
1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.12.005
Vartiainen, H. (2014). Principles for design-oriented pedagogy for learning from and with museum objects. PhD
dissertation. Publications of the University of Eastern Finland. Joensuu: University of Eastern Finland.
Vartiainen, H., Nissinen, S., Pöllänen, S. & Vanninen, P. 2018. Teacher´s insights into connected learning
networks: Emerging activities and forms of participation. AERA Open 2(3), pp 1-17.
Wilson, R. (2012). Nature and young children: encouraging creative play and learning in natural environments.
London: Routledge.
Yildirim, G., & Akamca, G. (2017). The effect of outdoor learning activities on the development of preschool
children. South African Journal of Education, 37(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v37n2a1378
Yliverronen, V. (2019). Esiopetuksen käsityö. Kolme tapaustutkimusta esikoululaisista käsityötehtävien parissa.
[Pre-primary education craft. Three case studies of pre-primary students with crafting tasks]. PhD
dissertation. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
Zamani, Z. (2016). ‘The woods is a more free space for children to be creative; their imagination kind of sparks
out there’: exploring young children’s cognitive play opportunities in natural, manufactured and mixed
outdoor preschool zones, Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 16(2), 172–189.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2015.1122538

Eila Lindfors (Ph.D, Ed.) is a Professor in Craft, Design and Technology Education discipline at the
University of Turku, Faculty of Education. She is an experienced teacher educator and researcher,
developer and evaluator of curricula and programs, and academic leader of university degree
programmes as well as research and development projects. Her main research interests are innovation
competencies, pedagogical innovation processes, STEAM-education and safe and secure learning and
working environments in pedagogical contexts. Professor Lindfors is the chair of the PATT38
conference.

164
Techne Series A: 28(2), 2021 156–165
 PATT38 Rauma, Finland 2021 – Section IV
Technology Education in Early Childhood

Marja-Leena Rönkkö (Adjunct professor, Ph.D., Ed.) is a senior lecturer in craft science at the University
of Turku, Department of Teacher Education, Rauma Campus. In her study, she is interested in the
meaning of the designing and making crafts and teaching crafts combined with entrepreneurial mindset,
cultural heritage education and integrative approach in all stages of learning.

Leena Kiviranta (M.Ed.) is currently working at the University of Turku, Department of Teacher
Education, Rauma Campus as a project researcher in InnoPlay project developing craft and technology
education in early childhood. Her research interest are on craft, health and well-being and outdoor
learning especially in the nature.

Virpi Yliverronen (Ph.D., Ed.) is a university lecturer of craft, design and technology education at the
University of Turku, Rauma campus. Her research focuses on the craft, design and technology activities
and learning in early childhood and pre-primary education.

University teacher Saija Tanhuanpää (M.Ed.) is currently working in the University of Turku,
Department of Teacher Education as project manager in InnoPlay project developing craft, design, and
technology education. Before this vacancy, she has worked several years as consultative special
education teacher developing good practices in communal sector. Her scientific interests are
participation, special education and collaboration.

Satu Grönman MEd (Education) is a University Teacher in Craft, Design and Technology Education
(CDTE) in the Department of Teacher Education in University of Turku, Rauma Campus. Current
semester (2020-2021) she is working as a project specialist in InnoPlay -project, researching CDTE in
the context of early childhood education. Her research interest are design thinking in education, holistic
learning in pre-primary education and goal orientations and teaching interaction in CDTE.

165
Techne Series A: 28(2), 2021 156–165

View publication stats