THE PERCEPTION OF SCHOOL STAFF AND PARENTS IN REGARD TO THE “ENFANT NATURE” APPROACH IN A QUEBEC PRESCHOOL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the recognized benefits of outdoor free play on children's physical and psychological well-being, there is a marked decrease of the time spent in these activities.Many factors could explain this, notably early schooling, increased time spent in indoor sedentary activities and the rise of adults' supervision and concerns related to children's safety (Strife & Downey, 2009).The Enfant Nature (EN) approach aims to counteract the "nature deficit disorder" (Louv, 2005) with an experiential outdoor education program.It also aims to foster overall children's development while promoting a healthy and active lifestyle.Over the course of a year, semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore the perceptions of school staff (n=2) and parents (n=8) of 4-year-olds in a preschool class engaged in EN approach.The experimental variables were perceptions related to the EN approach, the potential risk elements and the effects on the overall child's development.Our findings suggest that overall the participants demonstrated a high level of enthusiasm for EN and discovered a new stimulating way to learn and teach.They quickly concluded that the level of risk in a natural environment was similar to the school.They also reported that EN had been beneficial for children's cognitive, physical and social-emotional development, particularly for their self-confidence, general knowledge, problem solving, socialization, physical activity level and improvements of motor skills.The positive perceptions of EN and the recognition of its relevance for outdoor free play in learning allows us to be optimistic about the sustainability of this approach.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".