Norwegian context

Before answering the third research question and discussing possible effects of curriculum design and educational objectives set by the policies on the way children see nature, it is important to discuss how pupils‟ perspectives relate to them. The overview and analysis of the essays demonstrated that children‟s perspectives correspond to certain educational objectives of the Norwegian policy documents.

Faarlund (2007, p. 58) defines joy as the “driving force of friluftsliv according to Norwegian tradition”. Faarlund (2007) warns against the complexity of this concept and on the contrary, narrowing joy to a modern notion of “fun” (Faarlund, 2007, p. 59) which would simplify the meaning of concept in traditional friluftsliv. “The joy of

40

nature” is also mentioned in the Core Curriculum (Norwegian Board of Education, 2005) as one of the main attributes to being out in the nature. Education, it says “must enkindle a sense of joy” (Norwegian Board of Education, 2005, p. 38) in being physically active; it “should… induce pleasures in outdoor life”. Although the notions of “joy” as defined in traditional friluftsliv and modern education may be different, it is obvious that most of the children, based on the essays, do receive pleasure from being in the outdoors in their own ways. It can be proved by the words they use to describe their feelings. Some mention their experiences as “fun”, “nice”, “glad” or “happy”. The others specify that they felt “free”, “creative” and empowered. The fact that most of the children chose positive for them experiences also means that they associate nature with positive emotions rather than negative ones and it demonstrates that they do appreciate their stays in nature. This corresponds to the other educational aim mentioned in the Core Curriculum and PE curriculum, where children are expected to value the trips to nature.

Various authors (Tordsson, 2007; Gelter, 2010; Dahle, 2003; Gurholt, 2004; Aadland, 2009) mention that current experiences of friluftsliv are changing. The so-called fast and intensive, risky activities are gaining popularity as opposed to the slow peak friluftsliv experiences as defined by Gelter (2010). This is not however confirmed in the researched educational setting. The reflections pupils made about their trips say that none of the children mention risky or adrenalin-seeking activities they were involved in or tried to be involved in. While of course it is possible that children were involved in games or activities that seemed risky for them, the fact that none of them mentioned it suggests that probably they did not seem of enough importance or relevance to the children to mention.

Judging by the activities that children were involved in and the learning outcomes mentioned by them, children are in process of acquiring certain skills and knowledge mentioned in the curriculum for Physical Education and Natural sciences, such as orienteering; use of natural resources according to local traditions; learning about plants and animals. Gelter (2007, p. 44) writes that friluftsliv‟s goal in formal education “…has often become that of outdoor education with its focus on mastering different outdoor activities, but rarely on the deeper philosophical mission of Genuine Friluftsliv”. Aadland et. al. (2009) also mentions that the concept of friluftsliv is adopting new meanings in the context of education. This can be confirmed in the

41

Physical Education subject curriculum, which does define certain skills and activities children have to master while being outdoors. The fulfilment of the curriculum can be noticed in the description of activities made during school outings. The activities are often goal oriented to meet the curriculum objectives. That is why children mentioned learning about orienteering, different animals and insects, how to use natural objects to do measurements. However this is the school system that defines the goals and it seems to me that children have slightly different perspective. What Aadland et. al. (2009) write about friluftsliv, which is not done barely for pleasure anymore, but gained a multitude of important goals, seems a little exaggerating to me. While friluftsliv has adopted several other connotations distinct from the traditional views, what lies in the core of it is still a pleasure of staying outdoors and it is mainly for pleasure that people, and children in particular come back to it, no matter what goals the educational system puts. It can be found in the essays children write about their outdoor experiences. During their essays children do not focus as much on the actual learning outcomes. Children are much more excited to tell about their observations and interaction with natural environments rather than specify what they learn exactly. The interaction with nature seems to stimulate more response than the goal of doing it. It is therefore the process that matters more for them. So while school excursions do suit the category of “post- modern friluftsliv” defined by Gelter (2007, p. 39), it is not the fact that the children perceive it in the same way as school system does. Based on the essays, children do not question reasons to go into nature. They are made to go there with school in any case and it seems that their focus is not on “why was I in nature?” but more on “why did I like it?”, “why did I remember being in nature?”.

Another important connection that can be made to the educational objectives is the well- being of children. The Core Curriculum (Norwegian Board of Education, 2005) objectives imply that being “environmentally-aware human being” contributes greatly to students‟ well-being. As mentioned before, a vast majority of children had positive emotions and feelings from their outings, which of course suggest the positive state children were in during or after the trip. One of the main factors for that, besides being in nature and involvement in different activities, was the social interaction. The fact that children said that being in a company of friends made them happy, that they learned to appreciate their friends, got to know them better corresponds with the fact that children are expected to learn about their identities and place in society (their group in this case)

42

through physical activity culture in the outdoors (Utdanningsdirektoret, 2012). Although children did describe many experiences they had on their own during the trips, friluftsliv in an educational setting seems to encompass a lot of shared experiences. In this way friluftsliv in education does fulfil the criteria of “genuine friluftsliv”; according to Gelter (2000, p. 83) it “recreates the tribal life with the same security of belonging to an independent group” that is now being lost in modern society, where people become more and more independent (Quinn as cited in Gelter, 2000, p. 83). In educational setting of course friluftsliv is not a voluntary choice of connection for groups. Groups are formed in spite of it, but friluftsliv is the reason for building stronger relationship inside a group. Children mention that these interpersonal bonds also bring them joy and happiness. And since they do recognize it now, it is likely to be a tradition they take with them into the future – friluftsliv as a way to reconnect with the others, not only oneself and nature.