A Framework of Facilitator Typologies in Place-Responsive, Unregulated, Australian Nature Play Programs

A Framework of Facilitator Typologies in Place-Responsive, Unregulated, Australian Nature Play Programs | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article A Framework of Facilitator Typologies in Place-Responsive, Unregulated, Australian Nature Play Programs Amanda Cheree England, Dr Jo Bird, Dr Sue Elliott, Dr Marg Rogers This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7588585/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Nature play programs are becoming increasingly common in both regulated and unregulated early childhood education programs in Australia. Whilst existing research has established that regulated Australian nature play programs are place-responsive, aligning more with the Danish Nature Kindergarten approach than the commodified British Forest School model, there is negligible research in unregulated programs. In response to this gap, we investigated the philosophies and pedagogies of facilitators in unregulated, Australian nature play programs. We employed a qualitative multiple case study methodology and explored eight individual case studies through multiphase, sequential data generation. The three phases involved two focus groups, plus one individual field observation, and semi-structured interviews with each facilitator participant. Through both thematic and narrative analysis, we identified nine shared philosophical themes: nature connections, First Nations Peoples perspectives, sustainable actions, child-directed play, child-responsive interactions, risky or adventurous play, challenging mainstream paradigms, advocating and educating, and building community. However, variation in the depth of facilitators' approaches led to our identification of three nature play facilitator typologies: nature pedagogues, nature guides and nature players. These findings will be of interest to educators, regulatory bodies, and policy makers, and insights from this study may inform future practice, policy, and professional learning in the early years sector. early childhood education nature play place-responsive forest school philosophies pedagogies bush kindy Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Introduction Nature play programs are rapidly expanding in both unregulated and regulated early childhood (EC) programs across Australia. Although current research on regulated, Australian programs suggests they are place-responsive (Author, 2024 ), emphasising connections to local environments (Taylor et al., 2021 ), cultures (Jackson-Barrett & Hammond, 2018), and communities (Author, 2022 ), there is negligible research on implementation in unregulated programs (Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, 2021). This gap is particularly significant due to the worldwide translation of child-led and holistic Danish nature kindergartens (Williams-Siegfredsen, 2017 ), in contrast to the more standardised, commodified British Forest School model, which is promoted through certified and globalised training (Harris, 2017 ; Lloyd et al., 2018 ). While regulated Australian programs appear to be more aligned with the Danish kindergartens (Author, 2024 ), it remains unclear whether unregulated programs, lacking the oversight of mandated national regulations and curriculum frameworks, might be more susceptible to imported models or market pressures. In response to this and considering ongoing calls for further research (Christiansen et al., 2018 ; Lloyd et al., 2018 ), this study investigated the facilitators, philosophies, and pedagogies in unregulated Australian nature play programs. Employing a qualitative, multiple case study methodology (Stake, 2005 ), we identified nine shared philosophical themes, and three facilitator typologies based on variations in pedagogical intent. These typologies illustrate how facilitators pedagogically enact their beliefs, and we present a framework that contributes to both local and global conversations about facilitators’ roles within place-responsive nature play programs. Literature Review Initially, we critically synthesise current research to situate our study within broader national and international contexts. International Influence Australian nature play programs have been informed by international programs, most notably Danish Nature Kindergartens and the British Forest School model (Author, 2017 ). Danish Kindergartens, supported by the Scandinavian philosophy Friluftsliv (translated as ‘free air life’), reflects a cultural commitment to time spent outdoors as fundamental to children’s physical, social, intellectual and emotional development (Williams-Siegfredsen, 2017 ). Fundamentally, the programs are holistic, nature-immersed, child-led approaches that position children as capable and competent (Williams-Siegfredsen, 2017 ). In contrast, the British Forest School model translated from Denmark has been criticised as a commodified and standardised package (Blackham et al., 2021 ; Leather, 2018 ; Lloyd et al., 2018 ). The British model’s emphasis on certification and activity-based outcomes has raised concerns of “McDonaldisation” (Leather, 2018 , p. 9), whereby practice becomes marketable, potentially eroding deeper philosophical intent (Dean, 2019 ; Harris, 2017 ). In addition, imported British certified training could have significant implications for Australian nature play programs. Regulated Australian Nature Play Programs In Australian regulated ECE services, programs are facilitated by degree-qualified ECTs, with a strong emphasis on philosophy and pedagogy (ACECQA, 2018; 2020; Christiansen et al., 2018 ; Robinson et al., 2021 ). The ECTs’ beliefs and approaches are often shaped by their individual educational backgrounds and professional perspectives (Speldewinde et al., 2021 ). Across Australia’s geographic and ecological diversity, place-responsive educator pedagogies adapt to unique environmental, cultural and social contexts. As a result, they do not appear to conform to a standardised ‘one size fits all’ set of pedagogies or practices (Lloyd et al., 2018 ; Masters & Grogan, 2018 ). Research suggests that, unlike Lloyd and colleagues ( 2018 ), characterisation of British Forest School as a “drag and drop approach” (p. 46), ECTs in regulated Australian services are drawing on both nature play and place-responsive pedagogies adapted to Australian conditions (see, for example, Author, 2022 ). Hughes and colleagues (2022) proposed the term, Immersive Nature Play Programs (INPPs) to describe uniquely Australian programs that incorporate: Early Childhood Education for Sustainability (ECEfS), First Nations Peoples (FNP) perspectives, and local communities. In addition, Australian nature play programs often incorporate naked pedagogy, which prioritises play with natural, not human-made resources (Christiansen et al., 2018 ). Within these programs, facilitators follow the children’s lead as learning occurs through unstructured (Masters & Grogan, 2018 ), emergent (Christiansen et al., 2018 ), child-directed (Campbell & Speldewinde, 2019 ), scaffolded (Speldewinde et al., 2023 ) and inquiry-based approaches (Lloyd et al., 2018 .) These approaches are frequently described as intra-active, recognising the dynamic relationships between children, educators, and the more-than-human as nature becomes a co-teacher (Author, 2022 ; Lenz Taguchi, 2010 ). Overall, regardless of imported training, Australian programs appear to align more closely with Danish nature kindergartens, where autonomy, nature connections and child-directed learning are strongly emphasised (Williams-Siegfredsen, 2017 ) in contrast to the standardised, outcomes-based, British Forest School model (Hindmarch, 2021 ). The Research Gap: Unregulated Programs Despite the growing body of research in regulated programs, there is a lack of research insight regarding the philosophies and pedagogies informing unregulated nature play programs (Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles et al., 2021 ). Unlike regulated services, these programs operate without the mandated policy protections afforded by the Early Years Learning Framework [EYLF] (Australian Government Department of Education [AGDE], 2022 ), the National Quality Standard [NQS], or National Regulations (Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority [ACECQA], 2018 ). Thus, facilitators in unregulated programs may be more susceptible to market influences (Preston, 2015; Pyper et al., 2016 ) and imported training models (Forest School Association [FSA], n.d.; Forest School Training [FSTC], n.d.). This raises significant questions about whether unregulated programs reflect similar philosophical and pedagogical underpinnings as their regulated counterparts, or whether market-driven forces and imported training are shaping practices. In this study, we address this critical gap by examining the philosophies and pedagogies of facilitators in unregulated, Australian nature play programs. Research Design Theoretical and Methodological Frameworks This study was situated within a qualitative interpretivist research paradigm, underpinned by a relativist ontology and subjective epistemology. Such a paradigm suggests that we socially construct reality and knowledge through subjective experience (Creswell, 2009 ), allowing for multiple, equally valid interpretations of reality based on individual perspectives (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005 ). Whilst this paradigm acknowledges the subjectivity of knowledge based on personal experience (Guba & Lincoln, 2005 ), it emphasises co-constructed truth through social interactions (Cohen et al., 2007 ; Scotland, 2012 ). Consequently, social constructionism and social constructivism were adopted as the most relevant theoretical frameworks for this study. Both assert that knowledge is constructed by humans, either independently or collectively, through experience and interaction (Andrews, 2012 ; Young & Collin, 2004 ). While social constructivism focuses on individual meaning-making, social constructionism highlights the co-construction of knowledge through relationships. These theoretical frameworks offered a meaningful lens through which to explore how facilitators expressed and implemented their nature play philosophies and pedagogies in unregulated nature play programs. Over the course of two years, the lead author conducted eight individual case studies, with two participant sets: 3 ECTs and 5 non-ECTs, and co-constructed shared understandings. Three case studies were conducted with either degree or postgraduate degree qualified ECTs and five facilitators without these qualifications. A multiphase, sequential data generation approach was employed, utilising an interpretivist study design, where data from one phase informed the next. The study comprised three phases: phase one involved two online focus groups (one with ECTs and one with non-ECTs); phase two included one field observation of each participant during their nature play program; and phase three consisted of one individual online semi-structured interview with each participant. As each facilitator articulated and enacted their philosophies and pedagogies, their perceived realities were interpreted collaboratively through shared conversations and observations, aligning with the study’s theoretical frameworks. The clear intent was to examine both commonalities and distinctions within and across cases, seek recurring patterns and themes, and co-construct narratives from the diverse shared participant realities (Miles & Huberman, 1994 ; Mills et al., 2010 ). The Role of the Researchers and Ethics In undertaking this study, we acknowledged both the complexities of researching with young children and the lead author’s own insider positionality. Ethics approval was initially sought through the university’s Human Research Ethics Committee. The process was protracted and complex due to COVID-19 restrictions about in-person observations and concerns about participatory engagement for 3–5-year-old children. Once resolved, approval was granted, along with subsequent amendments to expand the study’s geographic reach. The ECTs and non-ECTs were the primary study participants, and 3-5-year-old children, other staff, parents and caregivers on-site were recognised as secondary participants (see Stolle & Fischman, 2009 ). The involvement of all participants adhered to the ethical principles of informed consent (for adults) and assent (for children), both before and during the lead researcher's on-site observations. Participation was voluntary, and both adults’ and children’s rights to withdraw at any time were upheld. Assent was negotiated with children throughout the observation, with the lead researcher who was an experienced ECT, applying professional standards of care (ECA, 2016). In line with Gair’s ( 2012 ) definition, the lead author was positioned as an insider in the nature play community, engendering both strengths and challenges. Conscious of bias potential, the lead author excluded participants where they recognised a close, personal friendship. Despite these exclusions, existing professional relationships facilitated recruitment and trust, enabling stronger engagement and generation of in-depth data. To minimise the influence of preconceived biases, such as assumptions about participants’ commodified practices based on social media, the lead author acknowledged this possibility and engaged in ongoing reflections. Data were collected via research journals (Annink, 2017 ), analytical memos (Fix et al., 2022 ) and peer debriefing sessions (Creswell & Miller, 2000 ). Facilitator participants took part in member checking, validating transcripts and narrative individual and combined summaries to promote accurate representation (Sahakyans, 2023). This reflexive approach, underpinned by social constructivism and constructionism, positioned the lead researcher as a co-constructor of meanings alongside participants. Through sustained dialogue with participants and critical reflection, interpretation informed by participants’ perspectives was supported, while also challenging and expanding the lead author’s insider understandings of nature play programs (Olmos-Vega et al., 2023 ). Data Analysis As illustrated in Fig. 1, we undertook a two-step approach (Zelčāne & Pipere, 2023) combining both thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2021 ) and narrative thematic analysis (Riessman, 1993 ; 2008 ) to analyse the study data. Initially, we conducted thematic analysis (Step 1, Figure 1) to develop in-depth understandings of each participant’s data and identify any patterns across the data (Braun & Clarke, 2021). This process involved multiple data immersion steps, including familiarisation memoing and coding (Byrne, 2022; Naeem et al., 2023), generating thematic statements to structure individual data summaries (Koesten et al., 2020; Saldaña, 2016), and refining these into key philosophical and pedagogical strands that summarised each participant’s data (Finlay, 2021). We then undertook narrative thematic analysis (Step 2, Figure 1), rewriting each participant’s data summary as an individual narrative (Riessman, 1993; 2008). Through cross-case analysis, we de-identified overlaps between the philosophical and pedagogical strands (Bearman et al., 2019; Rogers et al., 2023), resulting in the identification of nine shared philosophical themes across all eight participants. As we engaged in further reflexive cross-case analysis (Khan & VanWynsberghe, 2008), we identified that although participants shared common philosophies, the depth of their pedagogies varied within each theme. Hence, we identified three nature play facilitator typologies: Nature Pedagogues (three ECTs and one non-ECT), Nature Guides (two non-ECTs) and Nature Players (two non-ECTs). To confirm and investigate these differences further, we created three combined facilitator narratives, written in the first person from the combined voices of facilitators within each typology (Canevez et al., 2022). These combined narratives highlighted shared philosophies and key pedagogical differences and similarities across the facilitator typologies. The typologies offered a framework for understanding the range of philosophies and pedagogies present in unregulated, Australian nature play programs. Findings The nine shared philosophical themes underpinning facilitators' implementation of unregulated, Australian nature play programs emerged as core values in shaping each facilitator’s pedagogies. Together, the themes (Figure 1) offer a framework for interpreting the nature play pedagogies investigated. Although the shared themes were common to all facilitator participants, their pedagogies varied significantly, leading to the three distinct facilitator typologies previously described. The essential points of difference were the varying degrees of pedagogical engagement across three specific philosophical themes: nature connections, FNP perspectives, and sustainable practices. While all facilitators acknowledged the importance of these themes, it was the depth, intentionality, and consistency of their enactment, ranging from incidental incorporation to targeted integration, that shaped their typology classification. In contrast, the remaining six themes were approached consistently and similarly by the facilitators within each typology, further consolidating the distinct typologies. Throughout the following discussion, we interweave data from individual facilitator participants with excerpts from combined narratives, structured around the three main themes. Facilitator participants are grouped according to their typologies to illustrate both shared values and distinct pedagogies, expressed through either a nature, being, or play lens (see Figure 2). This discussion is divided into two sections: similarities and differences between typologies. The similarities section is concise, as we summarise the key pedagogies within each theme that cemented the typologies (see Table 1). The differences section is more extensive. In this section, we explore in depth the pedagogical distinctions that differentiated each typology. We conclude with Table 2 and a summary of each facilitator typology, which highlights the philosophies that likely shaped the pedagogies within each typology. Similarities between Typologies In this section, we highlight six philosophical themes and the pedagogies that situated facilitators within the three facilitator typologies. Table 1 identifies and elaborates on the key similarities across the six themes: child-directed play, child-responsive interactions, adventurous or risky play, challenging mainstream paradigms, advocating and educating, and building community. Shared pedagogies and pedagogical approaches reinforced the cohesion of facilitators within their typologies. Table 1 Similarities Between Typologies of Nature Play Facilitators in the Combined Narratives Nature Players Nature Guides Nature Pedagogues Participants Callie and Marley Bella and Stan Bunsita, Sophie, Mackenzie, and Waverley Philosophical Lens Play Lens Being Lens Nature Lens Pedagogical Approach Prioritises child-directed play, with nature as the setting or back drop. Values nature connection, although this appears to be a by-product of immersing children and letting them ‘be’, as they play in nature. Facilitates both their own, and children’s strong connections with nature, intentionally and consistently pedagogically embedding these connections as children learn in, with, and about nature. Philosophical themes and Illustrative Pedagogies Child-Directed Play Purposeful play invitations, human-made materials, and limited natural materials entice children to play. Play with both human-made materials, and loose parts, in nature. Play in nature with both natural and human-made materials, but prioritises imaginative play with loose parts and affordances, in response to nature. Child-Responsive Interactions Standing back, observing, and following the child’s lead in a purposefully built play environment. Holding space for children to just ‘be’ in nature; minimal adult intervention. Embracing slow pedagogy as they follow the child’s lead in response to nature. Adventurous or Risky Play Purposefully laid out spaces and materials to facilitate risky play. Occurs in response to playing in the natural elements, as children explore, and facilitators actively supervise. Occurs in response to natural elements. Facilitators dynamically risk assess as children explore, engage, and learn with nature. Challenging Mainstream Paradigms Play is the best way for children to learn. Children learn best through play, and this is best done outdoors. Nature play is the best way for children to learn. Advocating and Educating Advocate for, and educate about, the developmental benefits of playing. Advocate for children playing and learning outdoors. Advocate for, and educate about, the holistic benefits of nature play programs. Building Community Facilitating a safe, outdoor space in the community for children to play, and for parents to attend and connect. Creating space for, or to come together as a community, and look after the land, connect to, and respect nature. Sharing community experiences in nature to create opportunities to advocate, and educate about nature play programs, and caring with Country. In the following section, we examine in depth the differences between the three facilitator typologies, Differences between Typologies The three philosophical themes: nature connection, FNP perspectives and sustainable practices offered a way to significantly differentiate the typologies. Nature Connection All facilitator participants appeared to agree that nature play was beneficial for children’s development and that it is important for children to connect with nature. However, their pedagogies varied along a spectrum from incidental exposure to intentionally integrated. Nature Players Callie and Marley prioritised outdoor play, encouraging interaction with natural materials and occasional adult-led observations. They valued flora and fauna, but often chose not to interrupt play for further inquiry, and instead, play was prioritised. Our site is actually right next to bushland, so we often see kangaroos. When we do, we point them out, but we don’t stop the children playing. (Nature Players, Combined Narrative) Nature Guides, Stan and Bella, fostered nature immersion, advocating for slowing down and simply being in nature to form connections. They held space for exploration, inviting children to tune into their surroundings and connect with nature through ‘being’ in nature, making observations, engaging in shared conversations, asking open-ended questions, and developing environmental awareness. We do that too. As we explore, we hold space for children to stop, notice, engage and connect with their surroundings. As I notice things, I intentionally point them out, asking open-ended questions, so that children can explore and think for themselves. (Nature Guides, Combined Narrative) Lastly, Nature Pedagogues Bunsita, Mackenzie, Sophie, and Waverley, immersed children in nature, integrating connections as they learnt in, with and about nature. Their pedagogies were place-responsive, and included: slowing down and being with nature, nature journaling, storytelling, biophilic modelling, shared conversations, place-based play, and emergent, inquiry-based learning. They encouraged children to revisit places, recognise and respect flora and fauna, and notice seasonal changes as they built relationships with nature. Over time we have formed a deep connection to place by revisiting sites over and over again. It’s amazing the intricate details children can remember about places, and how to get to them. As children develop a connection to this space, they become aware of seasonal changes, and they get to the know the local flora and fauna, and their habits. Like we now know the types of birds that live at this site, their habits, and where and when to visit them. (Nature Pedagogues, Combined Narrative) First Nations Peoples Perspectives Across the study, facilitators demonstrated varying approaches to incorporating FNP perspectives. They ranged from intermittently integrating these perspectives to daily relational, authentic, place-responsive pedagogies that were deeply embedded. Nature Players, Callie and Marley, were open about being on a learning journey. While they did not offer daily Acknowledgements of Country [1] , they co-created one with families, shared FNP perspectives during the first week of each term and invited their Indigenous Uncle to share FNP perspectives when possible. That’s awesome, we have also attended First Nations Peoples workshops and training, and we always facilitate NAIDOC events within our local community. We are working hard to connect with the local part of the Country and incorporate First Nations Peoples practices into what we do here. So, during the first week of every term, we do an Acknowledgement of Country, which we co-wrote with our families, and display on our front gate throughout the term. (Nature Players, Combined Narrative) Nature Guides, Stan and Bella, adopted a different approach. For example, Stan employed a place-based immersion, believing that simply being on and connecting to Country fostered FNP perspectives. Although they did incorporate language, pay their respects, and invited First Nations guests to share perspectives when possible. Similarly, Bella acknowledged time constraints but noted she had begun building relationships with FNP, attending some community events, to strengthen her understandings so she could then share this with children in her program. I’d really love to incorporate more First Nations Peoples perspectives into our sessions, but I just don’t have the time to do more prep around this, and I’m wary of introducing too many concepts and ideas at a young age. So, we engage where we can, and if things naturally come up, such as bush tucker, we will explore them, but we don’t push them. Rather, we practice ‘being’ and connect to the land on one main site, we pay our respects when we are on Country, and we say ‘thank you’ in the local dialect at the end of our session. (Nature Guides, Combined Narrative) Nature Pedagogues, Bunsita, Sophie, Mackenzie, and Waverley, consistently integrated FNP language, storytelling, and seasonal knowledge throughout their daily programs. Their place-responsive practices reflected deep relational understandings of Country, and included daily songs, Acknowledgement of Country, and respectful engagement with place as they shared FNP perspectives with permission. Guided by long-standing reciprocal relationships with local Elders and FNP communities, they practised Dadirri (FNP cultural practice - a form of deep listening to the earth), followed seasonal calendars, and facilitated storytelling and workshops alongside community members. But to really embed these perspectives, I think we need to go deeper than that. It doesn’t have to be obvious or directive, rather it can be done through daily conversations. Like I’ve been saying, we discuss Country, First Nations Peoples perspectives, how they lived, and incorporate their languages and perspectives throughout our songs, storytelling, and conversations every day. (Nature Pedagogues, Combined Narrative) Sustainable Practices While all facilitators acknowledged the importance of nature for wellbeing, we propose that they move beyond viewing nature solely in terms of benefits and stewardship to an ethical and sustainable environmental stance. Hence, pedagogies ranged from adult-led sustainable practices to a more collaborative ECEfS approach with children. This is where facilitators went further than simply incorporating these practices by intentionally raising environmental awareness through the integration of ECEfS into their daily interactions with children and families. Nature Players, Callie and Marley, valued environmental respect; however, they primarily engaged in adult-led sustainability, such as sourcing second-hand materials and using home grown produce for sensory programs. They noted that the children did help them, although this was incidental, as it often occurred when a child stayed after to help clean up or feed the chickens. Although Callie did express a desire to do more, indicating they were still on a learning journey. Speaking of Caring for Country, I’d love to hear how you do that, including your sustainable practices. I know we could be doing better at this! I keep thinking about starting a compost with our vegetable scraps and setting up a worm farm, but we just haven’t got there yet. What do you guys do? (Nature Players, Combined Narrative) Nature Guides, Stan and Bella immersed children in nature to foster appreciation and environmental awareness, suggesting that a love for the environment can lead to protection. However, their approaches to ECEfS remained largely adult-directed, with limited opportunities for child participation. Stan reported avoiding more in-depth engagement with ECEfS because of the children’s young age. At the same time, Bella chose to indirectly model sustainable behaviours and share conversations about sustainability, rather than directly involving children. However, opportunities for increased child engagement were highlighted when Bella noted their incidental involvement in a community tree planting initiative during one of their nature play programs. Well, our journey is more about doing less and bringing less, which I think is a sustainable practice in itself. Yes, we share conversations with the children, but we also try not to overwhelm them with a lot of concepts. That’s why we indirectly teach children about sustainability through our words and actions. This includes bringing zero-waste lunchboxes, and engaging in conversations about picking up rubbish, respecting the environment, breaking branches and treading the same paths. (Nature Guides, Combined Narrative) Nature Pedagogues, Bunsita, Mackenzie, Sophie, and Waverley, moved beyond stewardship models by intentionally weaving ECEfS through daily place-responsive pedagogies that recognised nature as a program co-participant. They fostered environmental ethics and positioned children as active contributors through hands-on actions such as planting natives to create endangered species’ habitats, weeding out invasive plants, and employing storytelling to make complex environmental concepts accessible to children. Mackenzie, for instance, told seasonal stories about ‘root gnomes’ alongside habitat conservation work, while Waverley and the children hosted a Whale Festival to advocate against shark nets. Sophie and Bunsita cleaned up rubbish with children, using real-time dialogue to foster care with, not just for, the environment by considering the consequences of rubbish left in nature. I want the children to understand the big environmental impact that one tiny action can have, but I do think it’s a fine line between freaking them out and having them be really passionate about something. That’s why we discuss concepts in general terms as they naturally come up throughout the day. This is how children learn to think ahead to the future consequences of their present-day actions, and continue sustainable actions, regardless of where they are. (Nature Pedagogues, Combined Narrative) As demonstrated throughout these three philosophical themes, nature connections, FNP perspectives, and sustainability, the pedagogical depth and intentionality varied notably between typologies. Table 2 summarises these differences and the pedagogical lens that shaped each approach, providing a concise basis for distinguishing the three facilitator typologies. Table 2 Pedagogical Differences Between the Typologies of Nature Play Facilitators Nature Players Nature Guides Nature Pedagogues Participants Callie and Marley Bella and Stan Bunsita, Sophie, Mackenzie, and Waverley Philosophical Lens Play Lens Being Lens Nature Lens Pedagogical Approach Prioritises child-directed play, with nature as the setting or back drop. Values nature connection, although this appears to be a by-product of immersing children and letting them ‘be,’ as they play in nature. Facilitates both their own, and children’s strong connections with nature, intentionally, consistently, and pedagogically embedding these connections as children learn in, with, and about nature. Philosophical Themes and Illustrative Pedagogies Nature Connections Facilitates direct connections to nature, although play is prioritised. Facilitates multiple place-responsive connections to and with nature. Facilitates programs shaped by ongoing, place-responsive interactions with nature that embed nature connections. Sustainable Practices Incorporates discrete, adult-led sustainable business practices. Immerses children in nature and scaffolds sustainable stewardship practices through role-modelling and shared conversations. Embeds sustainable practices and ECEfS (see Author, 2016) in collaboration with children. FNP perspectives Incorporates FNP perspectives through First Nations visitors, and quarterly First Nations practices. Incorporates FNP perspectives and practices by ‘being’ on and connecting to the land. Embeds FNP perspectives through ongoing reciprocal relationships, and daily practices as the facilitators and children respond to Country. Summary of Typology Differences Nature Players The Nature Players, one with an ECE background and one without, focused on child-directed play, aligning with play work principles. Operating through a play lens, nature served primarily as a backdrop for play rather than an intentional pedagogical co-constructor. Players facilitated incidental nature engagement through play invitations with loose parts but appeared not to build on opportunities for nature connections if they impacted free play. Sustainable practices were minimal and adult-led, often operational rather than involving children directly. Engagement with FNP perspectives occurred infrequently, typically once every ten weeks or during guest visits. While these approaches aligned with the ethos of playworkers avoiding, intervening, or intentionally directing children, they were minimal in comparison to the Guides and Pedagogues. Nature Guides The Nature Guides, both with non-ECE backgrounds, facilitated through a being lens, their pedagogies were focused on immersion, presence, and environmental awareness. While they valued nature connections, sustainability, and FNPs, these generally appeared to be outcomes of time spent in nature rather than intentional pedagogies. The Guides seemed to scaffold environmental respect through role modelling and shared conversations, occasionally integrating sustainable practices such as tree planting in partnerships with local groups. Their engagement with FNP perspectives appeared to be sporadic, emerging from being on and connecting to the land rather than intentional pedagogies. While this non-directive approach fostered connections with nature and Country, it offered less depth than the Pedagogues’ more intentional pedagogies. Nature Pedagogues As ECTs or diploma qualified EC educators, the Nature Pedagogues consistently integrated strong connections to nature, sustainable actions, and FNP perspectives throughout their programs. Operating through a nature lens, their pedagogies were relational and place-responsive, as children learned in, with and about nature through practices such as Dadirri (deep listening), storytelling, repeated site visits, and nature journaling. They co-constructed learning with children and nature, integrating ECEfS through collaborative, child-led actions such as planting vines for an endangered butterfly species and habitat trees for koalas. Their engagement with FNP perspectives was intentional, ongoing, and grounded in reciprocal relationships with local Elders and FNP communities, and expressed through daily acknowledgements, use of Indigenous language, and culturally respectful pedagogies. In summary, the key similarities and differences across all nine themes illustrate how each facilitator's philosophical lens likely shaped pedagogies. As highlighted in Figure 3, the Nature Pedagogues demonstrated the most intentional and comprehensive pedagogical engagement. Through a nature lens, they embedded learning in, with and about nature across all aspects of their programs. Their practice was consistently relational, place-responsive, and grounded in sustainability and FNP perspectives. Nature Guides operated through a being lens, facilitating space for children to ‘be’ in nature. Their pedagogy centred on immersion, with nature connection emerging organically rather than through intentional teaching. Engagement with sustainability and FNP perspectives was generally incidental because of being on the land. Nature Players prioritised child-directed play, guided by a play lens and playwork philosophy. Nature was a valued setting, but not a co-teacher. Their programs were designed to support unstructured, inclusive play, with less emphasis on nature, sustainability or cultural pedagogies. Their advocacy focused on promoting the developmental value of play and the importance of creating safe, inclusive community spaces where children and parents could connect. Discussion Building on these findings, we now explore the implications for practice, theory and future research in Australian nature play programs. We investigated place-responsive Australian nature play philosophies and pedagogies by examining how facilitators in unregulated nature play programs defined and enacted these. Due to the limited research on facilitator perspectives in these programs to date (Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, 2021), this study provided a space for facilitators to share their beliefs and practices, extending research beyond regulated programs. Our analysis identified nine shared philosophical themes, many of which aligned with and extended upon previous research in regulated early childhood education (ECE) programs. However, differences in pedagogical intent across these themes led to our identification of three facilitator typologies: Nature Pedagogues, Nature Guides and Nature Players. These typologies each operate through a distinct pedagogical lens, nature, being and play. We argue that each lens shaped how the facilitators engaged with nature, FNP perspectives and sustainability. While the Pedagogues integrated nature connections, FNP perspectives, and ECEfS through intentional pedagogies as they learned with, in, and about nature, the Guides facilitated nature connections through immersion, play, and presence. They adopted some sustainable practices and incorporated FNP perspectives; however, they preferred not to overload the children with explicit knowledge. In contrast, the Players prioritised child-directed play with minimal adult interference, placing less emphasis on intentional nature connection. Instead, nature was primarily the setting or backdrop in their programs, which were designed to be a safe community space for children to play and adults to connect. Similarly, the Guides incorporated some FNP perspectives and primarily focused on adult-led sustainable practices. Despite these differences, all facilitators demonstrated place-responsiveness, integrating local cultures, communities, and environment into their programs through site-specific practices. Although the intentionality of their pedagogies differed, all programs appeared to be shaped by their local context, rather than a one-size-fits-all model. This aligns with existing research in regulated programs. For instance, Masters and Grogan ( 2018 ) described learning experiences attributed to the natural elements available at different sites, such as beaches or forests. Lloyd and Gray ( 2014 ) emphasised developing relationships with FNPs to share knowledge. Similarly, Ziemer and Lee ( 2021 ) noted the role of Acknowledgement of Country rituals and storytelling, while Christiansen and colleagues ( 2018 ) highlighted the importance of connecting to and learning about the land on which the program is located, as well as site-specific practices in response to the natural elements. Author ( 2017 ) documented the involvement of the parent community, who both advocated for the program and shared skills and knowledge with the children. While Beasley and colleagues ( 2023 ) further demonstrated how teachers and children engaged with seasonal cycles, learning about local Flora and FNP perspectives in response to place. These examples, like our findings, reflect a uniquely Australian approach to nature play programs, one that is responsive to place and distinct from standardised, international models such as those described by Leather ( 2018 ) and Hindmarch ( 2021 ). Limitations and Further Research The study limitations included a small sample size (eight participants), which was confined to two Australian states, and an exclusive examination of unregulated nature play programs. In addition, the breadth of data may have been constrained, as only one observation, interview, and focus group were conducted per facilitator participant. Whilst we prioritised depth over scale in this study, this may have limited the range of data generated from each facilitator participant. While the study findings build upon previous research in regulated nature play programs, they may not be generalisable in all early childhood programs. Future research could explore how these typologies may apply in regulated programs or different cultural and ecological contexts. Implications This study has several key implications for the field of nature play. As nature play programs in Australia continue to evolve (Kids In Nature Network [KINN], 2018 ), these typologies offer a reflective framework for facilitators to consider their own philosophies and pedagogies. Rather than fixed categories, these typologies represent a spectrum of engagement and intent. They acknowledge the value of varied pedagogies in nature play programs, and encourage ongoing philosophical reflection, pedagogical growth, and a deepening of practice, particularly around themes such as FNP perspectives and ECEfS. This research also challenges the notion that only ECTs can lead nature play programs. It supports inclusivity, highlighting the value of diverse professional backgrounds and skills in facilitating effective nature play programs. This study bridges the gap in understanding between unregulated and regulated nature play contexts, offering insights into how nature play philosophies and pedagogies can be applied across both contexts. Our findings align with existing research in regulated programs (Lloyd et al., 2018 ; Masters & Grogan, 2018 ), demonstrating that unregulated, Australian nature play programs are also place-responsive. These programs show no evidence of commodification (see Leather, 2018 ), as they respond to the local community, culture and environment. As such, this research may contribute to both national and global conversations about place-responsive nature play approaches. Conclusion This research study contributes new insights into a previously under-researched area of Australian ECE, unregulated nature play programs. We contribute to ongoing conversations regarding philosophies and pedagogies in Australian nature play programs, directly addressing calls for more research in this field. By identifying nine shared philosophical themes and three distinct facilitator typologies, this research highlights the spectrum of pedagogies employed by nature play facilitators in unregulated programs. The typologies —Nature Pedagogues, Nature Guides, and Nature Players —provide a reflective framework for educators in both regulated and unregulated programs to examine how their beliefs are enacted through their practices. This framework accounts for the diverse range of pedagogies within the field, without imposing a standardised model. Notably, study facilitators demonstrated place-responsive pedagogies, incorporating local culture, community and environment into their programs. These findings align with those in regulated programs and suggest that, contrary to international concerns, commodified nature play programs are not prevalent in Australia. As nature play programs expand both locally and internationally, this study contributes to international discourse on how place-responsive models are adapted and enacted. Further research could explore how these facilitator typologies apply across different cultural, community and environmental contexts. Declarations Funding Declaration: This research received no specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Clinical trial Number: Not applicable. Author Contribution A.E., J.B., S.E., and M.R. wrote the main manuscript text, and prepared all figures and tables. All authors reviewed the manuscript. Acknowledgements: The lead author wishes to acknowledge support from the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. The lead author affirms that all those who have made a significant contribution to this manuscript have been acknowledged. The researchers wish to thank the participants for their time. Data Availability The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are available from the lead author upon reasonable request. References Author (2016) Author (2017) Author (2022) Author (2024) Andrews, T. (2012). What is social constructionism? The Grounded Theory Review , 11 (1), 39-46. http://groundedtheoryreview.com/2012/06/01/what-is-social-constructionism/ Annink, A. (2017). Using the research journal during qualitative data collection in a cross-cultural context. Entrepreneurship Research Journal , 7 (1), 223. https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2015-0063 Ärlemalm‐Hagsér, E., & Sandberg, A. (2013). Outdoor play in a Swedish preschool context. In S. Knight (Ed.), International Perspectives on Forest School Natural Spaces to Play and Learn (pp. 55-66). SAGE Publications Incorporated. Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority [ACECQA]. (2018). National Quality Standard. Commonwealth of Australia. https://www.acecqa.gov.au/nqf/national-quality-standard Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority [ACECQA]. (2020). Guide to the National Quality Framework . https://www.acecqa.gov.au/nqf/about/guide Australian Government Department of Education [AGDE]. (2022). Belonging, Being and Becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia (V2.0) . Australian Government Department of Education for the Ministerial Council. https://www.acecqa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-01/EYLF-2022-V2.0.pdf Bearman, M., Greenhill, J., & Nestel, D. (2019). The power of simulation: A large‐scale narrative analysis of learners’ experiences. Medical Education , 53 (4), 369-379. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13747 Beasley, K., Hesterman, S., & Lee-Hammond, L. (2023). Reviving botany in the curriculum: the botanical journey of two Western Australian early childhood teachers. Australian Journal of Environmental Education , 39 (2), 166-180. https://doi.org/10.1017/aee.2022.42 Blackham, L., Cocks, A., & Bunce, L. T. (2021). “Our Forest School isn’t just the trees.’ Forest schools: Micro-communities for social and emotional development. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning , 1–12 . https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2021.1984964 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology , 18 (3), 328-352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238 Campbell, C., & Speldewinde, C. (2019). Bush kinder in Australia: A new learning ‘place’ and its effect on local policy. Policy Futures in Education , 17 (4), 541-559. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210317753028 Canevez, R. N., Karabelnik, M., & Winter, J. S. (2022). Police Brutality and Racial Justice Narratives Through Multi-Narrative Framing: Reporting and Commenting on the George Floyd Murder on YouTube. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly , 99 (3), 696-717. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990221108722 Christiansen, A., Hannan, S., Anderson, K., Coxon, L., & Fargher, D. (2018). Place-based nature kindergarten in Victoria, Australia: No tools, no toys, no art supplies. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education , 21 (1), 61-75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42322-017-0001-6 Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison. K. (2007). Research methods in education (6 th ed.). Routledge. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative and mixed methods approaches . SAGE Publications Incorporated. Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39 (3), 124-130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2 Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, A., Osborn, M., Lasczik, A., Malone, K., & Knight, L. (2021). Mudbook: Nature Play Framework . Queensland: Queensland Government Department of Education. https://childhoodnatureplay.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/MUDBOOKFinal_Reduce_File_Size_V2.pdf Dean, S. (2019). Seeing the forest and the trees: A historical and conceptual look at Danish Forest Schools . International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 6 (3), 53-63. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1225663.pdf Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed., pp. 1–32). SAGE Publications Incorporated. Early Childhood Australia [ECA]. (2016). Code of Ethics [Brochure]. Early Childhood Australia. http://www.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ECA-COE-Brochure-web-2019.pdf Fix, G. M., Kim, B., Ruben, M. A., & McCullough, M. B. (2022). Direct observation methods: A practical guide for health researchers. PEC Innovation, 1 , 100036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecinn.2022.100036 Forest School Association (FSA). (n.d.). Qualifications. Retrieved Feb 14, 2023 from https://forestschoolassociation.org/forest-school-qualification Forest School Training (FSTC). (n.d.). Levels of Training. Retrieved Feb 14, 2023 from https://www.forestschooltraining.co.uk/training/levels-of-training/ Gair, S. (2012). Feeling their stories: Contemplating empathy, insider/outsider positionings, and enriching qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research , 22 (1), 134–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732311420580 Guba, E. E. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed., pp. 191–216). SAGE Publications Incorporated. Harris, F. (2017). The nature of learning at forest school: Practitioners’ perspectives. Education 3-13 International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 45 (2), 272-291. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2015.1078833 Hindmarch, T. (2021). Chapter one: Forest School in Norway and in England: Ten years on. In T. Hindmarch & D. Boyd (Eds.), A path made in the walking: Forest School in Norway and in England (pp. 11-20). SchemaPlay Publications. https://www.omep.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/A5-Forest-School.pdf Jackson-Barrett, E. M., & Libby, L. H. (2018). Strengthening identities and involvement of Aboriginal children through learning on country. The Australian Journal of Teacher Education , 43 (6), 86-104. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v43n6.6 Khan, S., & VanWynsberghe, R. (2008). Cultivating the under-mined: Cross-case analysis as knowledge mobilization. Forum, Qualitative Social Research , 9 (1). https://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/334/730 Kids In Nature Network [KINN]. (2018). The state of nature play: Outdoor learning and bush kinder in Victoria. Summary of key findings and recommendations . https://3c9b4507-3b71-401c-aff3-4e14ac9612a3.filesusr.com/ugd/c8e3a7_a8a8b070b9624525b0f660e9143be700.pdf Kilander, A. (2022). Potential inclusion of outdoor preschool in state funded programs [Policy Brief]. National Institute for early Education Research. https://nieer.org/sites/default/files/2023-08/NIEER_Policy_Brief_Outdoor-Preschool.pdf Leather, M. (2018). A critique of “Forest School” or something lost in translation. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education , 21 (1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42322-017-0006-1 Lenz Taguchi, H. (2010). Going beyond the theory/practice divide in early childhood education: Introducing an intra-active pedagogy . Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203872956 Lloyd, A. & Gray, T. (2014). Place-based outdoor learning and environmental sustainability in Australian primary schools. J ournal of Sustainability Education, (October 2014). http://www.susted.com/wordpress/content/place-based-outdoor-learning-and-environmental-sustainability-within-australian-primary-school_2014_10/ Lloyd, A., Truong, S. & Gray, T. (2018). Place-based outdoor learning: More than a drag and drop approach. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 21 (1), 45-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42322-017-0002-5 Masters, J., & Grogan, L. (2018). A comparative analysis of nature kindergarten programmes in Australia and New Zealand. International Journal of Early Years Education, 26 (3), 233-248. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2018.1459507 Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications Incorporated. Mills, A. J., Durepos, G., & Wiebe, E. (2010). Encyclopedia of case study research. SAGE Publications Incorporated. Olmos-Vega, F. M., Stalmeijer, R. E., Varpio, L., & Kahlke, R. (2023). A practical guide to reflexivity in qualitative research: AMEE Guide No. 149. Medical Teacher , 45 (3), 241-251. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2022.2057287 Preston, A. (2015, March 29). The war against humanities at Britain’s universities. The Guardian. Pyper, E., Harrington, D., & Manson, H. (2016). The impact of different types of parental support behaviours on child physical activity, healthy eating, and screen time: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 16 (1), 568–568. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3245-0 Reconciliation Australia. (2025). Acknowledgement of Country and Welcome to Country . https://www.reconciliation.org.au/reconciliation/acknowledgement-of-country-and-welcome-to-country/#AcknowledgementofCountry Rhodes, A. (2017). Screentime and kids: What’s happening in our homes? https://www.rchpoll.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ACHP- Poll7_Detailed-Report-June21.pdf Riessman, C. K. (1993). Narrative analysis. SAGE Publications Incorporated. Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences . SAGE Publications Incorporated. Robinson, C., O’Connor, D. & Treasure, T. (2021). Education or care? Childcare or school? Pre-service teacher perspectives of teaching in the childcare sector. Issues in Educational Research, 31 (4), 1231-1248. http://www.iier.org.au/iier31/robinson.pdf Rogers, M. M., Ali, P., Thompson, J., & Ifayomi, M. (2023). “Survive, learn to live with it … or not”: A narrative analysis of women's repeat victimization using a lifecourse perspective. Social Science & Medicine (1982) , 338 , 116338-116338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116338 Sahakyan, T. (2023). Member‐checking through diagrammatic elicitation: Constructing meaning with participants. TESOL Quarterly , 57 (2), 686-701. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3210 Scotland, J. (2012). Explore the philosophical underpinnings of research: Relating ontology and epistemology to the methodology and methods of the scientific, interpretive, and critical research paradigms. English Language Teaching, 5 (9), 9-16. https://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/view/19183 Speldewinde, C., & Campbell, C. (2021). Bush kinders: Enabling girls' STEM identities in early childhood. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning , 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2021.2011337 Speldewinde, C., Kilderry, A., & Campbell, C. (2021). Ethnography and Bush Kinder research: A review of the literature. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood . 46 (3), 1-13. Speldewinde, C., Kilderry, A., & Campbell, C. (2023). Beyond the preschool gate: Teacher pedagogy in the Australian 'bush kinder'. International Journal of Early Years Education , 31 (1), 236-250. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2020.1850432 Stake, R. E. (2005). Multiple case study analysis . Guilford Publications. Stolle, E. P., & Fischman, G. E. (2009). Disrupting traditions: Teachers negotiating multiliteracies and digital technologies. In D. R. Cole & D. L. Pullen (Eds.), Multiliteracies in Motion (pp. 172–184). Routledge. Taylor, A., Zakharova, T., & Cullen, M. (2021). Common worlding pedagogies: Opening up to learning with worlds. Journal of Childhood Studies , 46 (4), 74-88. https://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=12761&context=ecuworkspost2013 The National Health & Medical Research Council [NHMRC]. (2018). National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research . Australian Government. www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/e72. Waite, S., & Goodenough, A. (2018). What is different about Forest School? Creating a space for an alternative pedagogy in England. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education , 21 (1), 25-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42322-017-0005-2 ­­ Williams-Siegfredsen, J. (2017). Understanding the Danish Forest School approach: Early years education in practice (2 nd ed.). Routledge. Young, R. & Collin, A. (2004). Introduction: Constructivism and social constructionism in the career field. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64 (3), 373–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2003.12.005 Ziemer, T., & Lee, E. (2021). Learning on country – Gowrie Broadmeadows’ story of connecting with country. Lady Gowrie Qld. https://gowrieqld.com.au/learning-on-country-gowrie-broadmeadows-story-of-connecting-with-country/ Footnotes “An Acknowledgement of Country is an opportunity for anyone to show respect for Traditional Owners and the continuing connection of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to Country… given at the beginning of a meeting, speech or event” (Reconciliation Australia, 2025 ). Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7588585","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":515716708,"identity":"95e1dcf0-9a09-4756-ab34-c2a97b179508","order_by":0,"name":"Amanda Cheree England","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of New England","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Amanda","middleName":"Cheree","lastName":"England","suffix":""},{"id":515716709,"identity":"acfefe0d-c793-406e-a077-cee5d64e71dd","order_by":1,"name":"Dr Jo Bird","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of New England","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"Dr","firstName":"Jo","middleName":"","lastName":"Bird","suffix":""},{"id":515716710,"identity":"dd375002-8af4-4f36-810f-87c47ff0f806","order_by":2,"name":"Dr Sue Elliott","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of New England","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"Dr","firstName":"Sue","middleName":"","lastName":"Elliott","suffix":""},{"id":515716711,"identity":"49c5a393-8099-43b7-a893-b2c9e8e1b150","order_by":3,"name":"Dr Marg Rogers","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of New England","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"Dr","firstName":"Marg","middleName":"","lastName":"Rogers","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-09-11 06:53:30","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7588585/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7588585/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":92052668,"identity":"cdc38009-9895-42bf-bb32-575b0b898bb8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-24 06:19:56","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":758420,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"AnonymousAFrameworkofFacilitatorTypologiesinPlaceResponsiveUnregulatedAustralianNaturePlayPrograms.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7588585/v1/6f2745a6db958148e0941746.docx"},{"id":92054333,"identity":"353b40b6-4608-42e7-b0ef-3e8a83ef678e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-24 06:35:56","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":5773,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"dfe70095628148d5addf37e2f0450937.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7588585/v1/d3632af98dfaad4f461c672f.json"},{"id":92052681,"identity":"332e7ff2-a8fb-4de0-8162-94dd5d0f16f0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-24 06:19:56","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":137563,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"dfe70095628148d5addf37e2f04509371enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7588585/v1/4e78e11cad130c27597d9819.xml"},{"id":92052667,"identity":"47c5880f-3c52-4590-856b-b59af16d70c4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-24 06:19:56","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":123053,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7588585/v1/f92f7f337ed1fbec7b97ff58.png"},{"id":92053978,"identity":"326a319f-ed45-41ec-9399-3d01134f6299","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-24 06:27:56","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":54943,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7588585/v1/ab219610902eddfd7ee8d202.png"},{"id":92052675,"identity":"ea1a12c6-9777-4591-bc87-1f5b3008f3d1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-24 06:19:56","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":17428,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7588585/v1/eef028a4ae093d6b5cf2b7f2.png"},{"id":92053982,"identity":"0c5a37da-ad64-4c1d-be9f-2634b5eaab96","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-24 06:27:56","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":480640,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7588585/v1/45bebe6331931115578ffae3.png"},{"id":92052672,"identity":"4790bfaa-6de4-4537-8db1-31b5e364ea5d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-24 06:19:56","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":34822,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7588585/v1/a1b0d0226fd94459826db2f3.png"},{"id":92053981,"identity":"60ee8270-49c6-461e-b780-4c4c32c691e6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-24 06:27:56","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":14739,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7588585/v1/e9151e0778118eab75b3a41f.png"},{"id":92054335,"identity":"7d726144-1b31-4b29-8825-bb1ff3a28ae9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-24 06:35:56","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":5752,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7588585/v1/8649efe10a9324cb3e63bd09.png"},{"id":92052678,"identity":"7453c634-16d2-458a-931b-5f1a239865c0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-24 06:19:56","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":40277,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7588585/v1/57652d7277be7064e66ec0cb.png"},{"id":92052680,"identity":"1e112599-1a52-4907-95e5-36a7d855bbe7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-24 06:19:56","extension":"xml","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":133456,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"dfe70095628148d5addf37e2f04509371structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7588585/v1/b17d466ef924ea2ff0ab4b74.xml"},{"id":92053984,"identity":"6271483e-8fee-44ab-9332-2b3cc0cbabee","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-24 06:27:56","extension":"html","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":148020,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7588585/v1/832c2b57db93585e71116397.html"},{"id":92052665,"identity":"5fee8012-da93-426e-918c-50c51f62c52c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-24 06:19:56","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":132436,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTwo Step Data Analysis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7588585/v1/143d2f51a52d8e93498537ba.png"},{"id":92054334,"identity":"cafd373b-4153-4e14-bd2b-e75983bf10a8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-24 06:35:56","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":89767,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFigure 1 \u003cem\u003eShared Philosophical Themes\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7588585/v1/59f8b95c8126a6bed9e9332b.png"},{"id":92052666,"identity":"cd0fa535-077f-41fb-97c8-608c6c86a4d1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-24 06:19:56","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":47619,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFigure 2 \u003cem\u003ePhilosophical Lens of Nature Play Facilitators\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"22.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7588585/v1/b24b57b62b3c53274c6336e2.png"},{"id":92052673,"identity":"e4ca07f8-951c-43a9-9168-72f57883ead4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-24 06:19:56","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":353617,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFigure 3 \u003cem\u003eSpectrum of Nature Play Typologies\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7588585/v1/8165829817f9d5a037d4ef55.png"},{"id":92055153,"identity":"fafb5caa-fe97-42e2-837a-0ab26105e9ef","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-24 06:43:56","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1435598,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7588585/v1/715bb52a-79f5-4d48-9a96-68889c4a48d2.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"A Framework of Facilitator Typologies in Place-Responsive, Unregulated, Australian Nature Play Programs","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eNature play programs are rapidly expanding in both unregulated and regulated early childhood (EC) programs across Australia. Although current research on regulated, Australian programs suggests they are place-responsive (Author, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), emphasising connections to local environments (Taylor et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), cultures (Jackson-Barrett \u0026amp; Hammond, 2018), and communities (Author, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), there is negligible research on implementation in unregulated programs (Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, 2021). This gap is particularly significant due to the worldwide translation of child-led and holistic Danish nature kindergartens (Williams-Siegfredsen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), in contrast to the more standardised, commodified British Forest School model, which is promoted through certified and globalised training (Harris, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Lloyd et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). While regulated Australian programs appear to be more aligned with the Danish kindergartens (Author, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), it remains unclear whether unregulated programs, lacking the oversight of mandated national regulations and curriculum frameworks, might be more susceptible to imported models or market pressures. In response to this and considering ongoing calls for further research (Christiansen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Lloyd et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), this study investigated the facilitators, philosophies, and pedagogies in unregulated Australian nature play programs. Employing a qualitative, multiple case study methodology (Stake, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), we identified nine shared philosophical themes, and three facilitator typologies based on variations in pedagogical intent. These typologies illustrate how facilitators pedagogically enact their beliefs, and we present a framework that contributes to both local and global conversations about facilitators\u0026rsquo; roles within place-responsive nature play programs.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Literature Review","content":"\u003cp\u003eInitially, we critically synthesise current research to situate our study within broader national and international contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eInternational Influence\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAustralian nature play programs have been informed by international programs, most notably Danish Nature Kindergartens and the British Forest School model (Author, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Danish Kindergartens, supported by the Scandinavian philosophy Friluftsliv (translated as \u0026lsquo;free air life\u0026rsquo;), reflects a cultural commitment to time spent outdoors as fundamental to children\u0026rsquo;s physical, social, intellectual and emotional development (Williams-Siegfredsen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Fundamentally, the programs are holistic, nature-immersed, child-led approaches that position children as capable and competent (Williams-Siegfredsen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). In contrast, the British Forest School model translated from Denmark has been criticised as a commodified and standardised package (Blackham et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Leather, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Lloyd et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). The British model\u0026rsquo;s emphasis on certification and activity-based outcomes has raised concerns of \u0026ldquo;McDonaldisation\u0026rdquo; (Leather, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e, p. 9), whereby practice becomes marketable, potentially eroding deeper philosophical intent (Dean, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Harris, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, imported British certified training could have significant implications for Australian nature play programs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eRegulated Australian Nature Play Programs\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn Australian regulated ECE services, programs are facilitated by degree-qualified ECTs, with a strong emphasis on philosophy and pedagogy (ACECQA, 2018; 2020; Christiansen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Robinson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The ECTs\u0026rsquo; beliefs and approaches are often shaped by their individual educational backgrounds and professional perspectives (Speldewinde et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Across Australia\u0026rsquo;s geographic and ecological diversity, place-responsive educator pedagogies adapt to unique environmental, cultural and social contexts. As a result, they do not appear to conform to a standardised \u0026lsquo;one size fits all\u0026rsquo; set of pedagogies or practices (Lloyd et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Masters \u0026amp; Grogan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Research suggests that, unlike Lloyd and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), characterisation of British Forest School as a \u0026ldquo;drag and drop approach\u0026rdquo; (p. 46), ECTs in regulated Australian services are drawing on both nature play and place-responsive pedagogies adapted to Australian conditions (see, for example, Author, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Hughes and colleagues (2022) proposed the term, Immersive Nature Play Programs (INPPs) to describe uniquely Australian programs that incorporate: Early Childhood Education for Sustainability (ECEfS), First Nations Peoples (FNP) perspectives, and local communities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn addition, Australian nature play programs often incorporate naked pedagogy, which prioritises play with natural, not human-made resources (Christiansen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Within these programs, facilitators follow the children\u0026rsquo;s lead as learning occurs through unstructured (Masters \u0026amp; Grogan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), emergent (Christiansen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), child-directed (Campbell \u0026amp; Speldewinde, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), scaffolded (Speldewinde et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) and inquiry-based approaches (Lloyd et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e.) These approaches are frequently described as intra-active, recognising the dynamic relationships between children, educators, and the more-than-human as nature becomes a co-teacher (Author, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Lenz Taguchi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Overall, regardless of imported training, Australian programs appear to align more closely with Danish nature kindergartens, where autonomy, nature connections and child-directed learning are strongly emphasised (Williams-Siegfredsen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) in contrast to the standardised, outcomes-based, British Forest School model (Hindmarch, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe Research Gap: Unregulated Programs\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite the growing body of research in regulated programs, there is a lack of research insight regarding the philosophies and pedagogies informing unregulated nature play programs (Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Unlike regulated services, these programs operate without the mandated policy protections afforded by the Early Years Learning Framework [EYLF] (Australian Government Department of Education [AGDE], \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), the National Quality Standard [NQS], or National Regulations (Australian Children\u0026rsquo;s Education and Care Quality Authority [ACECQA], \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, facilitators in unregulated programs may be more susceptible to market influences (Preston, 2015; Pyper et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) and imported training models (Forest School Association [FSA], n.d.; Forest School Training [FSTC], n.d.). This raises significant questions about whether unregulated programs reflect similar philosophical and pedagogical underpinnings as their regulated counterparts, or whether market-driven forces and imported training are shaping practices. In this study, we address this critical gap by examining the philosophies and pedagogies of facilitators in unregulated, Australian nature play programs.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Research Design","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eTheoretical and Methodological Frameworks\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study was situated within a qualitative interpretivist research paradigm, underpinned by a relativist ontology and subjective epistemology. Such a paradigm suggests that we socially construct reality and knowledge through subjective experience (Creswell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), allowing for multiple, equally valid interpretations of reality based on individual perspectives (Denzin \u0026amp; Lincoln, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Whilst this paradigm acknowledges the subjectivity of knowledge based on personal experience (Guba \u0026amp; Lincoln, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), it emphasises co-constructed truth through social interactions (Cohen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Scotland, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Consequently, social constructionism and social constructivism were adopted as the most relevant theoretical frameworks for this study. Both assert that knowledge is constructed by humans, either independently or collectively, through experience and interaction (Andrews, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Young \u0026amp; Collin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). While social constructivism focuses on individual meaning-making, social constructionism highlights the co-construction of knowledge through relationships. These theoretical frameworks offered a meaningful lens through which to explore how facilitators expressed and implemented their nature play philosophies and pedagogies in unregulated nature play programs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOver the course of two years, the lead author conducted eight individual case studies, with two participant sets: 3 ECTs and 5 non-ECTs, and co-constructed shared understandings. Three case studies were conducted with either degree or postgraduate degree qualified ECTs and five facilitators without these qualifications. A multiphase, sequential data generation approach was employed, utilising an interpretivist study design, where data from one phase informed the next. The study comprised three phases: phase one involved two online focus groups (one with ECTs and one with non-ECTs); phase two included one field observation of each participant during their nature play program; and phase three consisted of one individual online semi-structured interview with each participant. As each facilitator articulated and enacted their philosophies and pedagogies, their perceived realities were interpreted collaboratively through shared conversations and observations, aligning with the study\u0026rsquo;s theoretical frameworks. The clear intent was to examine both commonalities and distinctions within and across cases, seek recurring patterns and themes, and co-construct narratives from the diverse shared participant realities (Miles \u0026amp; Huberman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e; Mills et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eThe Role of the Researchers and Ethics\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn undertaking this study, we acknowledged both the complexities of researching with young children and the lead author\u0026rsquo;s own insider positionality. Ethics approval was initially sought through the university\u0026rsquo;s Human Research Ethics Committee. The process was protracted and complex due to COVID-19 restrictions about in-person observations and concerns about participatory engagement for 3\u0026ndash;5-year-old children. Once resolved, approval was granted, along with subsequent amendments to expand the study\u0026rsquo;s geographic reach.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe ECTs and non-ECTs were the primary study participants, and 3-5-year-old children, other staff, parents and caregivers on-site were recognised as secondary participants (see Stolle \u0026amp; Fischman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). The involvement of all participants adhered to the ethical principles of informed consent (for adults) and assent (for children), both before and during the lead researcher's on-site observations. Participation was voluntary, and both adults\u0026rsquo; and children\u0026rsquo;s rights to withdraw at any time were upheld. Assent was negotiated with children throughout the observation, with the lead researcher who was an experienced ECT, applying professional standards of care (ECA, 2016).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn line with Gair\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) definition, the lead author was positioned as an insider in the nature play community, engendering both strengths and challenges. Conscious of bias potential, the lead author excluded participants where they recognised a close, personal friendship. Despite these exclusions, existing professional relationships facilitated recruitment and trust, enabling stronger engagement and generation of in-depth data. To minimise the influence of preconceived biases, such as assumptions about participants\u0026rsquo; commodified practices based on social media, the lead author acknowledged this possibility and engaged in ongoing reflections. Data were collected via research journals (Annink, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), analytical memos (Fix et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) and peer debriefing sessions (Creswell \u0026amp; Miller, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). Facilitator participants took part in member checking, validating transcripts and narrative individual and combined summaries to promote accurate representation (Sahakyans, 2023). This reflexive approach, underpinned by social constructivism and constructionism, positioned the lead researcher as a co-constructor of meanings alongside participants. Through sustained dialogue with participants and critical reflection, interpretation informed by participants\u0026rsquo; perspectives was supported, while also challenging and expanding the lead author\u0026rsquo;s insider understandings of nature play programs (Olmos-Vega et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;1, we undertook a two-step approach (Zelčāne \u0026amp; Pipere, 2023) combining both thematic analysis (Braun \u0026amp; Clarke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) and narrative thematic analysis (Riessman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e; \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) to analyse the study data.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003eInitially, we conducted thematic analysis (Step 1, Figure 1) to develop in-depth understandings of each participant\u0026rsquo;s data and identify any patterns across the data (Braun \u0026amp; Clarke, 2021). This process involved multiple data immersion steps, including familiarisation memoing and coding (Byrne, 2022; Naeem et al., 2023), generating thematic statements to structure individual data summaries (Koesten et al., 2020; Salda\u0026ntilde;a, 2016), and refining these into key philosophical and pedagogical strands that summarised each participant\u0026rsquo;s data (Finlay, 2021). We then undertook narrative thematic analysis (Step 2, Figure 1), rewriting each participant\u0026rsquo;s data summary as an individual narrative (Riessman, 1993; 2008). Through cross-case analysis, we de-identified overlaps between the philosophical and pedagogical strands (Bearman et al., 2019; Rogers et al., 2023), resulting in the identification of nine shared philosophical themes across all eight participants.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs we engaged in further reflexive cross-case analysis (Khan \u0026amp; VanWynsberghe, 2008), we identified that although participants shared common philosophies, the depth of their pedagogies varied within each theme. Hence, we identified three nature play facilitator typologies: Nature Pedagogues (three ECTs and one non-ECT), Nature Guides (two non-ECTs) and Nature Players (two non-ECTs). To confirm and investigate these differences further, we created three combined facilitator narratives, written in the first person from the combined voices of facilitators within each typology (Canevez et al., 2022). These combined narratives highlighted shared philosophies and key pedagogical differences and similarities across the facilitator typologies. The typologies offered a framework for understanding the range of philosophies and pedagogies present in unregulated, Australian nature play programs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFindings\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe nine shared philosophical themes underpinning facilitators\u0026apos; implementation of unregulated, Australian nature play programs emerged as core values in shaping each facilitator\u0026rsquo;s pedagogies. Together, the themes (Figure 1) offer a framework for interpreting the nature play pedagogies investigated.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough the shared themes were common to all facilitator participants, their pedagogies varied significantly, leading to the three distinct facilitator typologies previously described. The essential points of difference were the varying degrees of pedagogical engagement across three specific philosophical themes: nature connections, FNP perspectives, and sustainable practices. While all facilitators acknowledged the importance of these themes, it was the depth, intentionality, and consistency of their enactment, ranging from incidental incorporation to targeted integration, that shaped their typology classification. In contrast, the remaining six themes were approached consistently and similarly by the facilitators within each typology, further consolidating the distinct typologies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThroughout the following discussion, we interweave data from individual facilitator participants with excerpts from combined narratives, structured around the three main themes. Facilitator participants are grouped according to their typologies to illustrate both shared values and distinct pedagogies, expressed through either a nature, being, or play lens (see Figure 2).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis discussion is divided into two sections: similarities and differences between typologies. The similarities section is concise, as we summarise the key pedagogies within each theme that cemented the typologies (see Table 1). The differences section is more extensive. In this section, we explore in depth the pedagogical distinctions that differentiated each typology. We conclude with Table 2 and a summary of each facilitator typology, which highlights the philosophies that likely shaped the pedagogies within each typology.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSimilarities between Typologies\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this section, we highlight six philosophical themes and the pedagogies that situated facilitators within the three facilitator typologies. Table 1 identifies and elaborates on the key similarities across the six themes: child-directed play, child-responsive interactions, adventurous or risky play, challenging mainstream paradigms, advocating and educating, and building community. Shared pedagogies and pedagogical approaches reinforced the cohesion of facilitators within their typologies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 1 \u003cem\u003eSimilarities Between Typologies of Nature Play Facilitators in the Combined Narratives\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"453\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNature Players\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNature Guides\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNature Pedagogues\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParticipants\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCallie and Marley\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBella and Stan\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBunsita, Sophie, Mackenzie, and Waverley\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePhilosophical Lens\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePlay Lens\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBeing Lens\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNature Lens\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePedagogical Approach\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePrioritises child-directed play, with nature as the setting or back drop.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eValues nature connection, although this appears to be a by-product of immersing children and letting them \u0026lsquo;be\u0026rsquo;, as they play in nature.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFacilitates both their own, and children\u0026rsquo;s strong connections with nature, intentionally and consistently pedagogically embedding these connections as children learn in, with, and about nature.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 453px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePhilosophical themes and Illustrative Pedagogies\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eChild-Directed Play\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePurposeful play invitations, human-made materials, and limited natural materials entice children to play.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePlay with both human-made materials, and loose parts, in nature.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePlay in nature with both natural and human-made materials, but prioritises imaginative play with loose parts and affordances, in response to nature.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eChild-Responsive Interactions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStanding back, observing, and following the child\u0026rsquo;s lead in a purposefully built play environment.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHolding space for children to just \u0026lsquo;be\u0026rsquo; in nature; minimal adult intervention.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEmbracing slow pedagogy as they follow the child\u0026rsquo;s lead in response to nature.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdventurous or Risky Play\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePurposefully laid out spaces and materials to facilitate risky play.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOccurs in response to playing in the natural elements, as children explore, and facilitators actively supervise.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOccurs in response to natural elements. Facilitators dynamically risk assess as children explore, engage, and learn with nature.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eChallenging Mainstream Paradigms\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePlay is the best way for children to learn.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChildren learn best through play, and this is best done outdoors.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNature play is the best way for children to learn.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdvocating and Educating\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdvocate for, and educate about, the developmental benefits of playing.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdvocate for children playing and learning outdoors.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdvocate for, and educate about, the holistic benefits of nature play programs.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBuilding Community\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFacilitating a safe, outdoor space in the community for children to play, and for parents to attend and connect.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCreating space for, or to come together as a community, and look after the land, connect to, and respect nature.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSharing community experiences in nature to create opportunities to advocate, and educate about nature play programs, and caring with Country.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the following section, we examine in depth the differences between the three facilitator typologies,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDifferences between Typologies\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe three philosophical themes: nature connection, FNP perspectives and sustainable practices offered a way to significantly differentiate the typologies.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNature Connection\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll facilitator participants appeared to agree that nature play was beneficial for children\u0026rsquo;s development and that it is important for children to connect with nature. However, their pedagogies varied along a spectrum from incidental exposure to intentionally integrated. Nature Players Callie and Marley prioritised outdoor play, encouraging interaction with natural materials and occasional adult-led observations. They valued flora and fauna, but often chose not to interrupt play for further inquiry, and instead, play was prioritised.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOur site is actually right next to bushland, so we often see kangaroos. When we do, we point them out, but we don\u0026rsquo;t stop the children playing. (Nature Players, Combined Narrative)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNature Guides, Stan and Bella, fostered nature immersion, advocating for slowing down and simply being in nature to form connections. They held space for exploration, inviting children to tune into their surroundings and connect with nature through \u0026lsquo;being\u0026rsquo; in nature, making observations, engaging in shared conversations, asking open-ended questions, and developing environmental awareness.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWe do that too. As we explore, we hold space for children to stop, notice, engage and connect with their surroundings. As I notice things, I intentionally point them out, asking open-ended questions, so that children can explore and think for themselves. (Nature Guides, Combined Narrative)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLastly, Nature Pedagogues Bunsita, Mackenzie, Sophie, and Waverley, immersed children in nature, integrating connections as they learnt in, with and about nature. Their pedagogies were place-responsive, and included: slowing down and being with nature, nature journaling, storytelling, biophilic modelling, shared conversations, place-based play, and emergent, inquiry-based learning. They encouraged children to revisit places, recognise and respect flora and fauna, and notice seasonal changes as they built relationships with nature.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOver time we have formed a deep connection to place by revisiting sites over and over again. It\u0026rsquo;s amazing the intricate details children can remember about places, and how to get to them. As children develop a connection to this space, they become aware of seasonal changes, and they get to the know the local flora and fauna, and their habits. Like we now know the types of birds that live at this site, their habits, and where and when to visit them. (Nature Pedagogues, Combined Narrative)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFirst Nations Peoples Perspectives\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcross the study, facilitators demonstrated varying approaches to incorporating FNP perspectives. They ranged from intermittently integrating these perspectives to daily relational, authentic, place-responsive pedagogies that were deeply embedded. Nature Players, Callie and Marley, were open about being on a learning journey. While they did not offer daily Acknowledgements of Country\u003csup\u003e[1]\u003c/sup\u003e, they co-created one with families, shared FNP perspectives during the first week of each term and invited their Indigenous Uncle to share FNP perspectives when possible.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThat\u0026rsquo;s awesome, we have also attended First Nations Peoples workshops and training, and we always facilitate NAIDOC events within our local community. We are working hard to connect with the local part of the Country and incorporate First Nations Peoples practices into what we do here.\u0026nbsp;So, during the first week of every term, we do an Acknowledgement of Country, which we co-wrote with our families, and display on our front gate throughout the term. (Nature Players, Combined Narrative)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNature Guides, Stan and Bella, adopted a different approach. For example, Stan employed a place-based immersion, believing that simply being on and connecting to Country fostered FNP perspectives. Although they did incorporate language, pay their respects, and invited First Nations guests to share perspectives when possible. Similarly, Bella acknowledged time constraints but noted she had begun building relationships with FNP, attending some community events, to strengthen her understandings so she could then share this with children in her program.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eI\u0026rsquo;d really love to incorporate more First Nations Peoples perspectives into our sessions, but I just don\u0026rsquo;t have the time to do more prep around this, and I\u0026rsquo;m wary of introducing too many concepts and ideas at a young age. So, we engage where we can, and if things naturally come up, such as bush tucker, we will explore them, but we don\u0026rsquo;t push them. Rather, we practice \u0026lsquo;being\u0026rsquo; and connect to the land on one main site, we pay our respects when we are on Country, and we say \u0026lsquo;thank you\u0026rsquo; in the local dialect at the end of our session. (Nature Guides, Combined Narrative)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNature Pedagogues, Bunsita, Sophie, Mackenzie, and Waverley, consistently integrated FNP language, storytelling, and seasonal knowledge throughout their daily programs. Their place-responsive practices reflected deep relational understandings of Country, and included daily songs, Acknowledgement of Country, and respectful engagement with place as they shared FNP perspectives with permission. Guided by long-standing reciprocal relationships with local Elders and FNP communities, they practised Dadirri (FNP cultural practice - a form of deep listening to the earth), followed seasonal calendars, and facilitated storytelling and workshops alongside community members.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBut to really embed these perspectives, I think we need to go deeper than that. It doesn\u0026rsquo;t have to be obvious or directive, rather it can be done through daily conversations. Like I\u0026rsquo;ve been saying, we discuss Country, First Nations Peoples perspectives, how they lived, and incorporate their languages and perspectives throughout our songs, storytelling, and conversations every day. (Nature Pedagogues, Combined Narrative)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSustainable Practices\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile all facilitators acknowledged the importance of nature for wellbeing, we propose that they move beyond viewing nature solely in terms of benefits and stewardship to an ethical and sustainable environmental stance. Hence, pedagogies ranged from adult-led sustainable practices to a more collaborative ECEfS approach with children. This is where facilitators went further than simply incorporating these practices by intentionally raising environmental awareness through the integration of ECEfS into their daily interactions with children and families.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNature Players, Callie and Marley, valued environmental respect; however, they primarily engaged in adult-led sustainability, such as sourcing second-hand materials and using home grown produce for sensory programs. They noted that the children did help them, although this was incidental, as it often occurred when a child stayed after to help clean up or feed the chickens. Although Callie did express a desire to do more, indicating they were still on a learning journey.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSpeaking of Caring for Country, I\u0026rsquo;d love to hear how you do that, including your sustainable practices. I know we could be doing better at this! I keep thinking about starting a compost with our vegetable scraps and setting up a worm farm, but we just haven\u0026rsquo;t got there yet. What do you guys do? (Nature Players, Combined Narrative)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNature Guides, Stan and Bella immersed children in nature to foster appreciation and environmental awareness, suggesting that a love for the environment can lead to protection. However, their approaches to ECEfS remained largely adult-directed, with limited opportunities for child participation. Stan reported avoiding more in-depth engagement with ECEfS because of the children\u0026rsquo;s young age. At the same time, Bella chose to indirectly model sustainable behaviours and share conversations about sustainability, rather than directly involving children. However, opportunities for increased child engagement were highlighted when Bella noted their incidental involvement in a community tree planting initiative during one of their nature play programs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWell, our journey is more about doing less and bringing less, which I think is a sustainable practice in itself. Yes, we share conversations with the children, but we also try not to overwhelm them with a lot of concepts. That\u0026rsquo;s why we indirectly teach children about sustainability through our words and actions. This includes bringing zero-waste lunchboxes, and engaging in conversations about picking up rubbish, respecting the environment, breaking branches and treading the same paths. (Nature Guides, Combined Narrative)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNature Pedagogues, Bunsita, Mackenzie, Sophie, and Waverley, moved beyond stewardship models by intentionally weaving ECEfS through daily place-responsive pedagogies that recognised nature as a program co-participant. They fostered environmental ethics and positioned children as active contributors through hands-on actions such as planting natives to create endangered species\u0026rsquo; habitats, weeding out invasive plants, and employing storytelling to make complex environmental concepts accessible to children. Mackenzie, for instance, told seasonal stories about \u0026lsquo;root gnomes\u0026rsquo; alongside habitat conservation work, while Waverley and the children hosted a Whale Festival to advocate against shark nets. Sophie and Bunsita cleaned up rubbish with children, using real-time dialogue to foster care with, not just for, the environment by considering the consequences of rubbish left in nature.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eI want the children to understand the big environmental impact that one tiny action can have, but I do think it\u0026rsquo;s a fine line between freaking them out and having them be really passionate about something.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eThat\u0026rsquo;s why we discuss concepts in general terms as they naturally come up throughout the day. This is how children learn to think ahead to the future consequences of their present-day actions, and continue sustainable actions, regardless of where they are. (Nature Pedagogues, Combined Narrative)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs demonstrated throughout these three philosophical themes, nature connections, FNP perspectives, and sustainability, the pedagogical depth and intentionality varied notably between typologies. Table 2 summarises these differences and the pedagogical lens that shaped each approach, providing a concise basis for distinguishing the three facilitator typologies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2 \u003cem\u003ePedagogical Differences Between the Typologies of Nature Play Facilitators\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"463\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNature Players\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNature Guides\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNature Pedagogues\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParticipants\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCallie and Marley\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBella and Stan\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBunsita, Sophie, Mackenzie, and Waverley\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePhilosophical Lens\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePlay Lens\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBeing Lens\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNature Lens\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePedagogical Approach\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePrioritises child-directed play, with nature as the setting or back drop.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eValues nature connection, although this appears to be a by-product of immersing children and letting them \u0026lsquo;be,\u0026rsquo; as they play in nature.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFacilitates both their own, and children\u0026rsquo;s strong connections with nature, intentionally, consistently, and pedagogically embedding these connections as children learn in, with, and about nature.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 463px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePhilosophical Themes and Illustrative Pedagogies\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNature Connections\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFacilitates direct connections to nature, although play is prioritised.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFacilitates multiple place-responsive connections to and with nature.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFacilitates programs shaped by ongoing, place-responsive interactions with nature that embed nature connections.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSustainable Practices\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncorporates discrete, adult-led sustainable business practices.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImmerses children in nature and scaffolds sustainable stewardship practices through role-modelling and shared conversations.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEmbeds sustainable practices and ECEfS (see Author, 2016) in collaboration with children.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFNP perspectives\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncorporates FNP perspectives through First Nations visitors, and quarterly First Nations practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIncorporates FNP perspectives and practices by \u0026lsquo;being\u0026rsquo; on and connecting to the land.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 132px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEmbeds FNP perspectives through ongoing reciprocal relationships, and daily practices as the facilitators and children respond to Country.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary of Typology Differences\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNature Players\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Nature Players, one with an ECE background and one without, focused on child-directed play, aligning with play work principles. Operating through a play lens, nature served primarily as a backdrop for play rather than an intentional pedagogical co-constructor. Players facilitated incidental nature engagement through play invitations with loose parts but appeared not to build on opportunities for nature connections if they impacted free play. Sustainable practices were minimal and adult-led, often operational rather than involving children directly. Engagement with FNP perspectives occurred infrequently, typically once every ten weeks or during guest visits. While these approaches aligned with the ethos of playworkers avoiding, intervening, or intentionally directing children, they were minimal in comparison to the Guides and Pedagogues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNature Guides\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Nature Guides, both with non-ECE backgrounds, facilitated through a being lens, their pedagogies were focused on immersion, presence, and environmental awareness. While they valued nature connections, sustainability, and FNPs, these generally appeared to be outcomes of time spent in nature rather than intentional pedagogies. The Guides seemed to scaffold environmental respect through role modelling and shared conversations, occasionally integrating sustainable practices such as tree planting in partnerships with local groups. Their engagement with FNP perspectives appeared to be sporadic, emerging from being on and connecting to the land rather than intentional pedagogies. While this non-directive approach fostered connections with nature and Country, it offered less depth than the Pedagogues\u0026rsquo; more intentional pedagogies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNature Pedagogues\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs ECTs or diploma qualified EC educators, the Nature Pedagogues consistently integrated strong connections to nature, sustainable actions, and FNP perspectives throughout their programs. Operating through a nature lens, their pedagogies were relational and place-responsive, as children learned in, with and about nature through practices such as Dadirri (deep listening), storytelling, repeated site visits, and nature journaling. They co-constructed learning with children and nature, integrating ECEfS through collaborative, child-led actions such as planting vines for an endangered butterfly species and habitat trees for koalas. Their engagement with FNP perspectives was intentional, ongoing, and grounded in reciprocal relationships with local Elders and FNP communities, and expressed through daily acknowledgements, use of Indigenous language, and culturally respectful pedagogies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn summary, the key similarities and differences across all nine themes illustrate how each facilitator\u0026apos;s philosophical lens likely shaped pedagogies. As highlighted in Figure 3, the Nature Pedagogues demonstrated the most intentional and comprehensive pedagogical engagement. Through a nature lens, they embedded learning in, with and about nature across all aspects of their programs. Their practice was consistently relational, place-responsive, and grounded in sustainability and FNP perspectives. Nature Guides operated through a being lens, facilitating space for children to \u0026lsquo;be\u0026rsquo; in nature. Their pedagogy centred on immersion, with nature connection emerging organically rather than through intentional teaching. Engagement with sustainability and FNP perspectives was generally incidental because of being on the land. Nature Players prioritised child-directed play, guided by a play lens and playwork philosophy. Nature was a valued setting, but not a co-teacher. Their programs were designed to support unstructured, inclusive play, with less emphasis on nature, sustainability or cultural pedagogies. Their advocacy focused on promoting the developmental value of play and the importance of creating safe, inclusive community spaces where children and parents could connect.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eBuilding on these findings, we now explore the implications for practice, theory and future research in Australian nature play programs. We investigated place-responsive Australian nature play philosophies and pedagogies by examining how facilitators in unregulated nature play programs defined and enacted these. Due to the limited research on facilitator perspectives in these programs to date (Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, 2021), this study provided a space for facilitators to share their beliefs and practices, extending research beyond regulated programs. Our analysis identified nine shared philosophical themes, many of which aligned with and extended upon previous research in regulated early childhood education (ECE) programs. However, differences in pedagogical intent across these themes led to our identification of three facilitator typologies: Nature Pedagogues, Nature Guides and Nature Players.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese typologies each operate through a distinct pedagogical lens, nature, being and play. We argue that each lens shaped how the facilitators engaged with nature, FNP perspectives and sustainability. While the Pedagogues integrated nature connections, FNP perspectives, and ECEfS through intentional pedagogies as they learned with, in, and about nature, the Guides facilitated nature connections through immersion, play, and presence. They adopted some sustainable practices and incorporated FNP perspectives; however, they preferred not to overload the children with explicit knowledge. In contrast, the Players prioritised child-directed play with minimal adult interference, placing less emphasis on intentional nature connection. Instead, nature was primarily the setting or backdrop in their programs, which were designed to be a safe community space for children to play and adults to connect. Similarly, the Guides incorporated some FNP perspectives and primarily focused on adult-led sustainable practices. Despite these differences, all facilitators demonstrated place-responsiveness, integrating local cultures, communities, and environment into their programs through site-specific practices. Although the intentionality of their pedagogies differed, all programs appeared to be shaped by their local context, rather than a one-size-fits-all model.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis aligns with existing research in regulated programs. For instance, Masters and Grogan (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) described learning experiences attributed to the natural elements available at different sites, such as beaches or forests. Lloyd and Gray (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) emphasised developing relationships with FNPs to share knowledge. Similarly, Ziemer and Lee (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) noted the role of Acknowledgement of Country rituals and storytelling, while Christiansen and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) highlighted the importance of connecting to and learning about the land on which the program is located, as well as site-specific practices in response to the natural elements. Author (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) documented the involvement of the parent community, who both advocated for the program and shared skills and knowledge with the children. While Beasley and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) further demonstrated how teachers and children engaged with seasonal cycles, learning about local Flora and FNP perspectives in response to place. These examples, like our findings, reflect a uniquely Australian approach to nature play programs, one that is responsive to place and distinct from standardised, international models such as those described by Leather (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) and Hindmarch (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eLimitations and Further Research\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study limitations included a small sample size (eight participants), which was confined to two Australian states, and an exclusive examination of unregulated nature play programs. In addition, the breadth of data may have been constrained, as only one observation, interview, and focus group were conducted per facilitator participant. Whilst we prioritised depth over scale in this study, this may have limited the range of data generated from each facilitator participant.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile the study findings build upon previous research in regulated nature play programs, they may not be generalisable in all early childhood programs. Future research could explore how these typologies may apply in regulated programs or different cultural and ecological contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eImplications\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study has several key implications for the field of nature play. As nature play programs in Australia continue to evolve (Kids In Nature Network [KINN], \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), these typologies offer a reflective framework for facilitators to consider their own philosophies and pedagogies. Rather than fixed categories, these typologies represent a spectrum of engagement and intent. They acknowledge the value of varied pedagogies in nature play programs, and encourage ongoing philosophical reflection, pedagogical growth, and a deepening of practice, particularly around themes such as FNP perspectives and ECEfS. This research also challenges the notion that only ECTs can lead nature play programs. It supports inclusivity, highlighting the value of diverse professional backgrounds and skills in facilitating effective nature play programs. This study bridges the gap in understanding between unregulated and regulated nature play contexts, offering insights into how nature play philosophies and pedagogies can be applied across both contexts. Our findings align with existing research in regulated programs (Lloyd et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Masters \u0026amp; Grogan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), demonstrating that unregulated, Australian nature play programs are also place-responsive. These programs show no evidence of commodification (see Leather, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), as they respond to the local community, culture and environment. As such, this research may contribute to both national and global conversations about place-responsive nature play approaches.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis research study contributes new insights into a previously under-researched area of Australian ECE, unregulated nature play programs. We contribute to ongoing conversations regarding philosophies and pedagogies in Australian nature play programs, directly addressing calls for more research in this field. By identifying nine shared philosophical themes and three distinct facilitator typologies, this research highlights the spectrum of pedagogies employed by nature play facilitators in unregulated programs. The typologies \u0026mdash;Nature Pedagogues, Nature Guides, and Nature Players \u0026mdash;provide a reflective framework for educators in both regulated and unregulated programs to examine how their beliefs are enacted through their practices. This framework accounts for the diverse range of pedagogies within the field, without imposing a standardised model.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNotably, study facilitators demonstrated place-responsive pedagogies, incorporating local culture, community and environment into their programs. These findings align with those in regulated programs and suggest that, contrary to international concerns, commodified nature play programs are not prevalent in Australia. As nature play programs expand both locally and internationally, this study contributes to international discourse on how place-responsive models are adapted and enacted. Further research could explore how these facilitator typologies apply across different cultural, community and environmental contexts.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding Declaration:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThis research received no specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical trial Number:\u003c/strong\u003e Not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA.E., J.B., S.E., and M.R. wrote the main manuscript text, and prepared all figures and tables. All authors reviewed the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgements:\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe lead author wishes to acknowledge support from the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. The lead author affirms that all those who have made a significant contribution to this manuscript have been acknowledged. The researchers wish to thank the participants for their time.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated and analysed during the current study are available from the lead author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAuthor (2016)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAuthor (2017)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAuthor (2022)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAuthor (2024)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAndrews, T. (2012). What is social constructionism? \u003cem\u003eThe Grounded Theory Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(1), 39-46. http://groundedtheoryreview.com/2012/06/01/what-is-social-constructionism/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnnink, A. (2017). Using the research journal during qualitative data collection in a cross-cultural context. \u003cem\u003eEntrepreneurship Research Journal\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 7\u003c/em\u003e(1), 223. https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2015-0063 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026Auml;rlemalm‐Hags\u0026eacute;r, E., \u0026amp; Sandberg, A. (2013). Outdoor play in a Swedish preschool context. In S. Knight (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eInternational Perspectives on Forest School Natural Spaces to Play and Learn \u003c/em\u003e(pp. 55-66). SAGE Publications Incorporated.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAustralian Children\u0026rsquo;s Education and Care Quality Authority [ACECQA]. (2018). \u003cem\u003eNational Quality Standard.\u003c/em\u003e Commonwealth of Australia. https://www.acecqa.gov.au/nqf/national-quality-standard \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAustralian Children\u0026rsquo;s Education and Care Quality Authority [ACECQA]. (2020). \u003cem\u003eGuide to the National Quality Framework\u003c/em\u003e. https://www.acecqa.gov.au/nqf/about/guide \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAustralian Government Department of Education [AGDE]. (2022). \u003cem\u003eBelonging, Being and Becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia (V2.0)\u003c/em\u003e. Australian Government Department of Education for the Ministerial Council. https://www.acecqa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-01/EYLF-2022-V2.0.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBearman, M., Greenhill, J., \u0026amp; Nestel, D. (2019). The power of simulation: A large‐scale narrative analysis of learners\u0026rsquo; experiences. \u003cem\u003eMedical Education\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 53\u003c/em\u003e(4), 369-379. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13747 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBeasley, K., Hesterman, S., \u0026amp; Lee-Hammond, L. (2023). Reviving botany in the curriculum: the botanical journey of two Western Australian early childhood teachers. \u003cem\u003eAustralian Journal of Environmental Education\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 39\u003c/em\u003e(2), 166-180. https://doi.org/10.1017/aee.2022.42 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBlackham, L., Cocks, A., \u0026amp; Bunce, L. T. (2021). \u0026ldquo;Our Forest School isn\u0026rsquo;t just the trees.\u0026rsquo; Forest schools: Micro-communities for social and emotional development. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 1\u0026ndash;12\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2021.1984964\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBraun, V., \u0026amp; Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? \u003cem\u003eQualitative Research in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 18\u003c/em\u003e(3), 328-352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCampbell, C., \u0026amp; Speldewinde, C. (2019). Bush kinder in Australia: A new learning \u0026lsquo;place\u0026rsquo; and its effect on local policy. \u003cem\u003ePolicy Futures in Education\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 17\u003c/em\u003e(4), 541-559. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210317753028 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCanevez, R. N., Karabelnik, M., \u0026amp; Winter, J. S. (2022). Police Brutality and Racial Justice Narratives Through Multi-Narrative Framing: Reporting and Commenting on the George Floyd Murder on YouTube. \u003cem\u003eJournalism \u0026amp; Mass Communication Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 99\u003c/em\u003e(3), 696-717. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990221108722 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChristiansen, A., Hannan, S., Anderson, K., Coxon, L., \u0026amp; Fargher, D. (2018). Place-based nature kindergarten in Victoria, Australia: No tools, no toys, no art supplies. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Outdoor and Environmental Education\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 21\u003c/em\u003e(1), 61-75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42322-017-0001-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCohen, L., Manion, L., \u0026amp; Morrison. K. (2007). \u003cem\u003eResearch methods in education\u003c/em\u003e (6\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e ed.). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCreswell, J. W. (2009). \u003cem\u003eResearch design: Qualitative and mixed methods approaches\u003c/em\u003e. SAGE Publications Incorporated.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCreswell, J. W., \u0026amp; Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. \u003cem\u003eTheory into Practice, 39\u003c/em\u003e(3), 124-130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, A., Osborn, M., Lasczik, A., Malone, K., \u0026amp; Knight, L. (2021). \u003cem\u003eMudbook: Nature Play Framework\u003c/em\u003e. Queensland: Queensland Government Department of Education. https://childhoodnatureplay.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/MUDBOOKFinal_Reduce_File_Size_V2.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDean, S. (2019). Seeing the forest and the trees: A historical and conceptual look at Danish Forest Schools\u003cem\u003e. International Journal of Early Childhood Environmental Education, 6\u003c/em\u003e(3), 53-63. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1225663.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDenzin, N. K., \u0026amp; Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin \u0026amp; Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eThe SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research\u003c/em\u003e (3rd ed., pp. 1\u0026ndash;32). SAGE Publications Incorporated.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEarly Childhood Australia [ECA]. (2016). \u003cem\u003eCode of Ethics\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003e[Brochure].\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003eEarly Childhood Australia. http://www.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ECA-COE-Brochure-web-2019.pdf \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFix, G. M., Kim, B., Ruben, M. A., \u0026amp; McCullough, M. B. (2022). Direct observation methods: A practical guide for health researchers. \u003cem\u003ePEC Innovation, 1\u003c/em\u003e, 100036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecinn.2022.100036\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eForest School Association (FSA). (n.d.). \u003cem\u003eQualifications. \u003c/em\u003eRetrieved Feb 14, 2023 from https://forestschoolassociation.org/forest-school-qualification\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eForest School Training (FSTC). (n.d.). \u003cem\u003eLevels of Training. \u003c/em\u003eRetrieved Feb 14, 2023 from https://www.forestschooltraining.co.uk/training/levels-of-training/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGair, S. (2012). Feeling their stories: Contemplating empathy, insider/outsider positionings, and enriching qualitative research. \u003cem\u003eQualitative Health Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(1), 134\u0026ndash;143. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732311420580\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGuba, E. E. \u0026amp; Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin \u0026amp; Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eThe SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research\u003c/em\u003e (3rd ed., pp. 191\u0026ndash;216). SAGE Publications Incorporated.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarris, F. (2017). The nature of learning at forest school: Practitioners\u0026rsquo; perspectives. \u003cem\u003eEducation 3-13 International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 45\u003c/em\u003e(2), 272-291. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2015.1078833\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHindmarch, T. (2021). Chapter one: Forest School in Norway and in England: Ten years on. In T. Hindmarch \u0026amp; D. Boyd (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eA path made in the walking: Forest School in Norway and in England\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 11-20). SchemaPlay Publications. https://www.omep.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/A5-Forest-School.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJackson-Barrett, E. M., \u0026amp; Libby, L. H. (2018). Strengthening identities and involvement of Aboriginal children through learning on country. \u003cem\u003eThe Australian Journal of Teacher Education\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 43\u003c/em\u003e(6), 86-104. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v43n6.6 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKhan, S., \u0026amp; VanWynsberghe, R. (2008). Cultivating the under-mined: Cross-case analysis as knowledge mobilization. \u003cem\u003eForum, Qualitative Social Research\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 9\u003c/em\u003e(1). https://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/334/730\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKids In Nature Network [KINN]. (2018). \u003cem\u003eThe state of nature play: Outdoor learning and bush kinder in Victoria. Summary of key findings and recommendations\u003c/em\u003e. https://3c9b4507-3b71-401c-aff3-4e14ac9612a3.filesusr.com/ugd/c8e3a7_a8a8b070b9624525b0f660e9143be700.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKilander, A. (2022). \u003cem\u003ePotential inclusion of outdoor preschool in state funded programs\u003c/em\u003e [Policy Brief]. National Institute for early Education Research. https://nieer.org/sites/default/files/2023-08/NIEER_Policy_Brief_Outdoor-Preschool.pdf \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeather, M. (2018). A critique of \u0026ldquo;Forest School\u0026rdquo; or something lost in translation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Outdoor and Environmental Education\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 21\u003c/em\u003e(1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42322-017-0006-1 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLenz Taguchi, H. (2010). \u003cem\u003eGoing beyond the theory/practice divide in early childhood education: Introducing an intra-active pedagogy\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203872956\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLloyd, A. \u0026amp; Gray, T. (2014). Place-based outdoor learning and environmental sustainability in Australian primary schools. \u003cem\u003eJ\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eournal of Sustainability Education, \u003c/em\u003e(October 2014).\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003ehttp://www.susted.com/wordpress/content/place-based-outdoor-learning-and-environmental-sustainability-within-australian-primary-school_2014_10/ \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLloyd, A., Truong, S. \u0026amp; Gray, T. (2018). Place-based outdoor learning: More than a drag and drop approach. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 21\u003c/em\u003e(1), 45-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42322-017-0002-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMasters, J., \u0026amp; Grogan, L. (2018). A comparative analysis of nature kindergarten programmes in Australia and New Zealand. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Early Years Education,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e(3), 233-248. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2018.1459507\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMiles, M. B., \u0026amp; Huberman, A. M. (1994). \u003cem\u003eQualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook \u003c/em\u003e(2nd ed.). SAGE Publications Incorporated.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMills, A. J., Durepos, G., \u0026amp; Wiebe, E. (2010). \u003cem\u003eEncyclopedia of case study research. \u003c/em\u003eSAGE Publications Incorporated. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOlmos-Vega, F. M., Stalmeijer, R. E., Varpio, L., \u0026amp; Kahlke, R. (2023). A practical guide to reflexivity in qualitative research: AMEE Guide No. 149. \u003cem\u003eMedical Teacher\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 45\u003c/em\u003e(3), 241-251. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2022.2057287 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePreston, A. (2015, March 29). The war against humanities at Britain\u0026rsquo;s universities. \u003cem\u003eThe Guardian. \u003c/em\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePyper, E., Harrington, D., \u0026amp; Manson, H. (2016). The impact of different types of parental support behaviours on child physical activity, healthy eating, and screen time: A cross-sectional study. \u003cem\u003eBMC Public Health, 16\u003c/em\u003e(1), 568\u0026ndash;568. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3245-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReconciliation Australia. (2025). \u003cem\u003eAcknowledgement of Country and Welcome to Country\u003c/em\u003e. https://www.reconciliation.org.au/reconciliation/acknowledgement-of-country-and-welcome-to-country/#AcknowledgementofCountry\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRhodes, A. (2017). Screentime and kids: What\u0026rsquo;s happening in our homes? https://www.rchpoll.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ACHP- Poll7_Detailed-Report-June21.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRiessman, C. K. (1993). \u003cem\u003eNarrative analysis. \u003c/em\u003eSAGE Publications Incorporated.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRiessman, C. K. (2008). \u003cem\u003eNarrative methods for the human sciences\u003c/em\u003e. SAGE Publications Incorporated. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRobinson, C., O\u0026rsquo;Connor, D. \u0026amp; Treasure, T. (2021). Education or care? Childcare or school? Pre-service teacher perspectives of teaching in the childcare sector.\u003cem\u003e Issues in Educational Research, 31\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1231-1248. http://www.iier.org.au/iier31/robinson.pdf \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRogers, M. M., Ali, P., Thompson, J., \u0026amp; Ifayomi, M. (2023). \u0026ldquo;Survive, learn to live with it \u0026hellip; or not\u0026rdquo;: A narrative analysis of women\u0026apos;s repeat victimization using a lifecourse perspective. \u003cem\u003eSocial Science \u0026amp; Medicine (1982)\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 338\u003c/em\u003e, 116338-116338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116338 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSahakyan, T. (2023). Member‐checking through diagrammatic elicitation: Constructing meaning with participants. \u003cem\u003eTESOL Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 57\u003c/em\u003e(2), 686-701. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3210 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eScotland, J. (2012). Explore the philosophical underpinnings of research: Relating ontology and epistemology to the methodology and methods of the scientific, interpretive, and critical research paradigms. \u003cem\u003eEnglish Language Teaching, 5\u003c/em\u003e(9), 9-16. https://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/view/19183 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeldewinde, C., \u0026amp; Campbell, C. (2021). Bush kinders: Enabling girls\u0026apos; STEM identities in early childhood. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning\u003c/em\u003e, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2021.2011337 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeldewinde, C., Kilderry, A., \u0026amp; Campbell, C. (2021). Ethnography and Bush Kinder research: A review of the literature. \u003cem\u003eAustralasian Journal of Early Childhood\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003e46\u003c/em\u003e(3), 1-13. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpeldewinde, C., Kilderry, A., \u0026amp; Campbell, C. (2023). Beyond the preschool gate: Teacher pedagogy in the Australian \u0026apos;bush kinder\u0026apos;. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Early Years Education\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 31\u003c/em\u003e(1), 236-250. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2020.1850432 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStake, R. E. (2005). \u003cem\u003eMultiple case study analysis\u003c/em\u003e. Guilford Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStolle, E. P., \u0026amp; Fischman, G. E. (2009). Disrupting traditions: Teachers negotiating multiliteracies and digital technologies. In D. R. Cole \u0026amp; D. L. Pullen (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eMultiliteracies in Motion \u003c/em\u003e(pp. 172\u0026ndash;184). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTaylor, A., Zakharova, T., \u0026amp; Cullen, M. (2021). Common worlding pedagogies: Opening up to learning with worlds. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Childhood Studies\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 46\u003c/em\u003e(4), 74-88. https://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=12761\u0026amp;context=ecuworkspost2013 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe National Health \u0026amp; Medical Research Council [NHMRC]. (2018). \u003cem\u003eNational Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research\u003c/em\u003e. Australian Government. www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/e72. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWaite, S., \u0026amp; Goodenough, A. (2018). What is different about Forest School? Creating a space for an alternative pedagogy in England. \u003cem\u003eAustralian Journal of Outdoor Education\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 21\u003c/em\u003e(1), 25-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42322-017-0005-2 \u0026shy;\u0026shy;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilliams-Siegfredsen, J. (2017). \u003cem\u003eUnderstanding the Danish Forest School approach: Early years education in practice \u003c/em\u003e(2\u003csup\u003end \u003c/sup\u003eed.). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYoung, R. \u0026amp; Collin, A. (2004). Introduction: Constructivism and social constructionism in the career field. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Vocational Behavior, 64\u003c/em\u003e(3), 373\u0026ndash;388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2003.12.005\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZiemer, T., \u0026amp; Lee, E. (2021). \u003cem\u003eLearning on country \u0026ndash; Gowrie Broadmeadows\u0026rsquo; story of connecting with country. \u003c/em\u003eLady Gowrie Qld. https://gowrieqld.com.au/learning-on-country-gowrie-broadmeadows-story-of-connecting-with-country/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Footnotes","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e \u0026ldquo;An Acknowledgement of Country is an opportunity for anyone to show respect for Traditional Owners and the continuing connection of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to Country\u0026hellip; given at the beginning of a meeting, speech or event\u0026rdquo; (Reconciliation Australia, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"early childhood education, nature play, place-responsive, forest school, philosophies, pedagogies, bush kindy","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7588585/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7588585/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eNature play programs are becoming increasingly common in both regulated and unregulated early childhood education programs in Australia. Whilst existing research has established that regulated Australian nature play programs are place-responsive, aligning more with the Danish Nature Kindergarten approach than the commodified British Forest School model, there is negligible research in unregulated programs. In response to this gap, we investigated the philosophies and pedagogies of facilitators in unregulated, Australian nature play programs. We employed a qualitative multiple case study methodology and explored eight individual case studies through multiphase, sequential data generation. The three phases involved two focus groups, plus one individual field observation, and semi-structured interviews with each facilitator participant. Through both thematic and narrative analysis, we identified nine shared philosophical themes: nature connections, First Nations Peoples perspectives, sustainable actions, child-directed play, child-responsive interactions, risky or adventurous play, challenging mainstream paradigms, advocating and educating, and building community. However, variation in the depth of facilitators' approaches led to our identification of three nature play facilitator typologies: nature pedagogues, nature guides and nature players. These findings will be of interest to educators, regulatory bodies, and policy makers, and insights from this study may inform future practice, policy, and professional learning in the early years sector.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"A Framework of Facilitator Typologies in Place-Responsive, Unregulated, Australian Nature Play Programs","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-09-24 06:19:51","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7588585/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"be325eae-c903-42ec-b17b-e22219eaa2e3","owner":[],"postedDate":"September 24th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-21T01:53:26+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-09-24 06:19:51","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7588585","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7588585","identity":"rs-7588585","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}