In British Columbia’s nature programs where hearts are rooted : a multiple case study of nature education in early childhood education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research is aimed at contributing to knowledge about early childhood education (ECE) nature programs for children aged two to five years old. In the research, three cases that embed eight early childhood nature programs were examined in British Columbia (BC). This research is applied and interdisciplinary. The research questions address why nature education is important in educating young children. A qualitative approach was used to identify the relevant data outlined in this dissertation. Data was collected at individual case study programs and then analyzed through thematic analysis, coding of materials, field observations, and researcher reflections. The key findings determined that: (1) nature exposure helps reconnect children to nature; and (2) there are social benefits of that reconnection that positively affect children’s development, happiness, and health. Findings also indicated that to realize these outcomes, operators and educators of nature programs- have a breadth and depth of leadership that demonstrated both a vision and a mission of how to facilitate children’s experiences in nature. In the research process, limitations were identified alongside ethical considerations, to inform the completed research. Findings from this study will be disseminated to interested early childhood professionals. This knowledge dissemination is key to building nature education capacity in ECE programs. Key Words: nature, methodology, case study, children, early childhood education, nature education, early childhood educators, placed-based education, pedagogy, resource
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".