META-THEMATIC ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH ON FOREST SCHOOL-BASED PRACTICES: A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW

Abstract

Originally developed in Scandinavia, forest schooling encourages children to study by removing them from the confines of their homes and schools and allowing them to engage in outdoor endeavors. The aim of this study is to analyze the results of qualitative research on forest school-based practices in early childhood education with the mixed-meta method and to see the effects of forest school-based practices on child development as a whole by combining the results. For this purpose, meta-thematic analysis of qualitative studies was conducted by subjecting them to content analysis with the document analysis pattern. The meta-thematic study identified children's cognitive, social, and emotional development as the primary foundations. A total of 725 research were visualized using a flow diagram, and 12 of those studies were chosen for study after being found in national and international databases. The results of the analysis showed that forest school-based practices have positive effects on children's cognitive, social-emotional, motor and language development areas. Nonetheless, these applications exhibit adverse characteristics; yet, alternatives exist to mitigate these drawbacks.

Keywords

• Early childhood education
• Forest School
• social-emotional development
• outdoor education

Meta-Thematic Analysis Of Research On Forest School-Based Practices: A Comprehensive Review

Abstract

Originally developed in Scandinavia, forest schooling encourages children to study by removing them from the confines of their homes and schools and allowing them to engage in outdoor endeavors. The aim of this study is to analyze the results of qualitative research on forest school-based practices in early childhood education with the meta-thematic analysis method and to see the effects of forest school-based practices on child development as a whole by combining the results. For this purpose, meta-thematic analysis of qualitative studies was conducted by subjecting them to content analysis with the document analysis pattern. The meta-thematic study identified children's cognitive, social, and emotional development as the primary foundations. A total of 725 research studies were initially identified, and their selection process was illustrated using a flow diagram. Out of these, 12 studies—sourced from national and international databases—were selected for detailed analysis. The results of the analysis showed that forest school-based practices have positive effects on children's cognitive, social-emotional, motor and language development areas. Nonetheless, these applications exhibit some adverse characteristics such as cold weather, insufficient planning, lack of knowledge etc. yet, alternatives exist to mitigate these drawbacks.

Keywords

• Early childhood education
• Forest School
• social-emotional development
• outdoor education

References

1. Ahi, B., Kaya, G., & Pamuk, D. K. (2023). Forest schools as a family choice: A narrative study. Early Child Development and Care, 193(5), 647–660. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2022.2131779
2. Barrable, A., & Arvanitis, A. (2019). Flourishing in the forest: Looking at Forest School through a self-determination theory lens. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 22(1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42322-018-0018-
3. Batdı, V. (2017). The effect of multiple intelligences on academic achievement: A meta-analytic and thematic study. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 17(6), 2057–2092.
4. Batdı, V. (2019). Meta-tematik analiz (V. Batdı, Ed.). Anı Yayıncılık.
5. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
6. Canlı, E. S. K. (2022). Orman okulu temelli prososyal destek programının 4-6 yaş çocukların prososyal davranışlarına etkisi [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
7. Canlı, E. S. K., & Temel, Z. F. (2022). Bir orman okulu uygulamasının değerlendirilmesi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 62, 431–454. https://doi.org/10.21764/maeuefd.1040654
8. Cohen, J. A. (1960). Coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104

9. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
10. Cudworth, D. (2021). Promoting an emotional connection to nature and other animals via forest school: Disrupting the spaces of neoliberal performativity. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 41(3/4), 506–521.
11. Cudworth, D., & Lumber, R. (2021). The importance of Forest School and the pathways to nature connection. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 24, 71–85.
12. Cumming, F., & Nash, M. (2015). An Australian perspective of a forest school: Shaping a sense of place to support learning. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 15(4), 296–309.
13. Dabaja, Z. F. (2022). Reviewing two decades of research on the Forest School impact on children: The sequel. Education 3–13, 50(6), 737–750. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2021.1905019
14. Dilek, Ö. (2019). Orman okulu uygulamalarının çocukların gelişimine yönelik katkısının değerlendirilmesi [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Kastamonu Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
15. Dillon, J., Rickinson, M., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M. Y., Sanders, D., & Benefield, P. (2006). The value of outdoor learning: Evidence from research in the UK and elsewhere. School Science Review, 87(320), 107–111.
16. Eroğlu, M. (2023). Türkiye’de orman okulu yaklaşımını uygulayan okul öncesi kurumlardaki yetişkinlerin uygulama sürecine dair risk algılarının ve deneyimlerinin incelenmesi [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Fatih Sultan Mehmet Vakıf Üniversitesi, Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü.
17. Eroğlu, S. B. (2018). An evaluation of the Forest School Program in a state preschool in Istanbul [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
18. Garden, A., & Downes, G. (2023). New boundaries, undecided roles: Towards an understanding of forest schools as constructed spaces. Education 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2023.2170187
19. Gill, T. (2007). No fear: Growing up in a risk averse society. Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.
20. Glaser, B. G. (2007). Constructivist grounded theory. Historical Social Research. Supplement, 19, 93–105. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40981071
21. Glaser, B. G., & Holton, J. (2007). Remodeling grounded theory. Historical Social Research. Supplement, 19, 47–68. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40981068
22. Hopkins, J. A. (2022). The impact of forest school within secondary school education: An exploratory case of key stage three pupils’ views [Master’s thesis, York St John University]. http://ray.yorksj.ac.uk/id/eprint/7236/
23. Forest School Association. (2023, October 18). What is Forest School?https://forestschoolassociation.org/what-is-forest-school/
24. Harris, F. (2018). Outdoor learning spaces: The case of forest school. Area, 50(2), 222–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12360
25. Harris, F. (2023). Practitioners’ perspectives on children’s engagement in forest school. Education 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2023.2183081
26. Kanat, T., & Arcagök, S. (2022). Orman okulu uygulamalarının okul öncesi dönem çocukları üzerindeki etkilerinin değerlendirilmesi. Eğitim, Bilim ve Araştırma Dergisi, 3(1), 167–195.
27. Kılıç, S. (2014). Etki büyüklüğü. Journal of Mood Disorders, 4(1), 44–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09488-5_58
28. Koyuncu, M. (2019). Okul öncesi eğitimde alternatif yaklaşım: Orman okullarında öğretmen, veli ve yönetici görüşlerinin incelenmesi [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt Üniversitesi, Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
29. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
30. Koçak, A., & Arun, Ö. (2006). İçerik analizi çalışmalarında örneklem sorunu. Selçuk İletişim, 4(3), 21–28.
31. Lovell, R. (2009). An evaluation of physical activity at forest school [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The University of Edinburgh.
32. Mart, M., & Waite, S. (2023). Exploring interactions in settings affiliated with Forest School: Two cases. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42322-023-00134-4
33. Murray, R., & O’Brien, L. (2005). Such enthusiasm – a joy to see: An evaluation of Forest School in England. Forest Research.
34. O’Brien, L., & Murray, R. (2006). A marvellous opportunity for children to learn: A participatory evaluation of Forest School in England and Wales. http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/fr0112forestschoolsreport.pdf/$FILE/fr0112forestschoolsreport.pdf
35. O’Brien, L., & Murray, R. (2007). Forest school and its impacts on young children: Case studies in Britain. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 6(4), 249–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2007.03.006
36. O’Brien, L. (2009). Learning outdoors: The Forest School approach. Education 3–13, 37(1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004270802291798
37. Pamuk, D. K., & Ahi, B. (2019). A phenomenological study on the school concept of the children attending the forest school. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 7(4), 1386–1407.
38. Paslı, A. M. (2019). Doğal çevre, kent ve çocuk ilişkisini yeniden kurmak: İskandinavya’da doğa temelli eğitim ve İsveç orman okulu örneği [Unpublished master’s thesis]. İstanbul Şehir Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
39. Savery, A., Cain, T., Garner, J., Jones, T., Kynaston, E., Mould, K., Nicholson, L., Proctor, S., Pugh, R., Rickard, E., & Wilson, D. (2017). Does engagement in Forest School influence perceptions of risk, held by children, their parents, and their school staff? Education 3–13, 45(5), 519–531.
40. Sella, E., Bolognesi, M., Bergamini, E., Mason, L., & Pazzaglia, F. (2023). Psychological benefits of attending Forest School for preschool children: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 29(35), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09750-4
41. Talan, T., Doğan, Y., & Batdı, V. (2020). Efficiency of digital and non-digital educational games: A comparative meta-analysis and a meta-thematic analysis. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(4), 474–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1743798
42. Topçuoğlu, M. (2019). Orman okulu uygulamalarının okul öncesi dönem çocukları üzerindeki etkilerinin değerlendirilmesi [Unpublished master’s thesis]. İstanbul Üniversitesi, Cerrahpaşa Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü.
43. Turtle, C., Convery, I., & Convery, K. (2015). Forest schools and environmental attitudes: A case study of children aged 8–11 years. Cogent Education, 2, 110010.