Introduction

In this mixed methods study, researchers considered the effectiveness of a short-term, nature-based summer program in terms of children’s readiness for school. The readiness of young children to transition to formal schooling (i.e., preschool to kindergarten in the USA) is influenced by more than just the child’s skills; readiness is also impacted by the school, home, peers, and neighborhood contexts as well as the relationship among these contexts (Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta, 2000). In an effort to explain the complexity of all the interacting components that influence children, some have used the metaphor of an ecosystem. In biology, an ecosystem consists of all the living communities (e.g., animals, plants, bacteria, etc.) and the surrounding physical components (e.g., wind, rocks, water, etc.). Together, these living and nonliving components create an interconnected system. Similarly, Bronfenbrenner (1979) proposed the ecological systems theory to explain the complexity of factors involved in a child’s development. In later years, modifications were made to his theory, with some referring to it as the bio-ecological perspective (Murphy, 2020).

Taking an ecological or bio-ecological perspective means focusing not only on children, but also on the environmental factors at play in their given context (Bronfenbrenner, 1992). In the current study, researchers investigated typical factors such as social-emotional development and academic preparedness. However, they also considered factors including connections to nature and family perspectives of the program. Using an ecological perspective, the purpose of this study was to explore students’ social-emotional/academic development, connections to the nature around them, and family satisfaction as a result of participating in a summer preschool program.

Summer programs may provide more opportunities for children of all backgrounds, as access to “standard” early childhood education can be restricted for reasons related to race (Babbs Hollett & Frankenberg, 2022), socio-economic status (Archambault et al., 2020), and other factors such as healthcare access (Archambault et al., 2020). As concerns about lack of school readiness in children without formal school experiences increase, finding ways to dismantle barriers becomes more important. Particularly for those living in poverty, greater accessibility to quality early childhood education programs may increase chances of future school success (Goldstein et al., 2013). Also, examining preschool programs that specifically occur during the critical summer window prior to transition to formal schooling may provide unique implications and inform practice.

Background

Although taking an ecological perspective necessitates investigating multiple factors, it does not preclude the fact that some factors may be more influential than others. For example, few would argue about the importance of the social-emotional and academic development of young children. Well-developed social-emotional and academic skills prepare students for future schooling (Hatcher et al., 2012; Martinsone et al., 2022), with decades of research indicating these skills are critical to early school success (Raver, 2002). In fact, many teachers tend to believe social-emotional skills are more critical readiness indicators than pre-academic skills (although this perspective has changed due to emphasis on standards and accountability; Snow, 2006). Perhaps this is because social and emotional shortcomings can lead to academic issues. For example, students who lack basic social skills could be more disruptive and may be labeled as “hard to teach” and/or be excluded from working with other students on a regular basis (Raver, 2002). As a result of lower expectations and/or social isolation, their academic performance may suffer. Disruptions to the development of literacy (e.g., phonetic awareness, alphabet knowledge) and numeracy (e.g., counting, number sense) skills are of particular concern at early ages.

Research shows children in early educational intervention preschool programs benefit in terms of social skill development (Howes et al., 2008) before entering kindergarten. However, studies are often conducted with students in full-year preschool programs. These programs can be very expensive and potentially prohibitive for some families. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), less than 42% of 3–4 year-olds went to preschool from households that were below 185% of the poverty level in 2019 (NCES, 2021). For reference, the National Center for Children in Poverty (NCCP) reports children living in households below 200% of the poverty level (double the official poverty level) are considered low income (NCCP, 2021). With these challenges, is it possible that shorter interventions could make a significant impact on social and academic skills? If so, these options might provide a less expensive, more accessible model for families. Furthermore, what if the structure of these programs provided other advantages for children, such as increased connections to nature and/or more family satisfaction?

Perhaps unbeknownst to some, an international movement toward nature-based early childhood programs is rolling across the global landscape. From udeskoler (“outdoor schools”) in Denmark, to bush kindergartens (preschool) in Australia, to forest schools in the UK and US, the movement is gaining momentum (Leather, 2018). In 2020, for example, 585 nature-based preschools, forest kindergartens, and outdoor preschools were operating in the United States (representing a two-fold increase since 2017; North American Association for Environmental Education [NAAEE], 2020). Along with this increase, research related to nature-based learning has surged, with many claiming outdoor interventions can have positive effects on behavior (Amoly et al., 2014; Kuo et al., 2018), mood (Roe & Aspinall, 2011), vitality (Ryan et al., 2010), and relationships with others (Tiplady & Menter, 2021). Although some claim traditional and nature-based programs equally prepare young children in terms of behavior, academics, and social-emotional skills (Cordiano et al., 2019), others want nature-based programs to do more. In the estimation of some, nature-based interventions should also facilitate young children to become more engaged in the natural world so they will develop and maintain more pro-environmental attitudes as adults (Wells & Lekies, 2006).

However, in spite of growing research, critiques of the nature-based movement frequently bring forth multiple arguments against this model. First, some point out general problems with nature-based research, including lack of rigor (Becker et al., 2017; Blair, 2009; Williams & Dixon, 2013) and bias (Williams & Dixon, 2013). Some criticisms are based on the fact that considerable variations exist between studies that test nature association, and/or the fact that many studies use simulations (e.g., pictures, videos, etc.) to test nature effects (McMahan & Estes, 2015) instead of more ecologically-valid means. Second, some take issue with the foundational principles of the nature-based schooling movement, including the idea that play is a worthwhile endeavor. These kinds of issues sometimes creep into mainstream media, as evidenced by articles like “Can Climbing Trees Replace Preparing for Tests?” in a recent edition of The New York Times (Martinelli, 2020). Finally, some argue that the nature-based schooling movement is spreading too quickly. As a result, they argue programs are being implemented with little resemblance to the foundational principles of nature-based schooling (Leather, 2018). In the current study, researchers took an ecological approach and investigated multiple outcomes in children who engaged in a short-term, nature-based program. Using a mixed methods approach, researchers explored the following research questions:

RQ1. What effects did the program have on children’s social/emotional outcomes?

RQ2. What percentage of children who completed the program showed academic development indicative of Kindergarten success?

RQ3. Did children’s connections to nature change over the course of the program?

Methods

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Hope College in Holland, Michigan. All research was carried out in accordance with the regulations as set forth by Part 46 of Title 45 of the US Code of Federal Regulations and the Belmont Report. Before collecting data from minors, caregivers (i.e., parents or legal guardians) provided written consent for their children to participate in the study. Furthermore, children provided assent before data were collected.

A convergent, mixed methods research design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018) was used to provide an in-depth understanding of the information needed to address each research question. As children engaged in a short-term, nature-based preschool program, both quantitative and qualitative data were collected, analyzed, and merged together for interpretation. A mixed methods approach was appropriate, as the quantitative data provided standardized feedback on children’s social-emotional and academic development and their connections to nature. The qualitative data allowed caregivers to share what was most meaningful to them and their children in regard to the preschool program. Furthermore, the qualitative data often provided additional context to better explain the quantitative results. Overall, the richness of the mixed data allowed the research team to gain a better understanding of how the preschool program affected the children’s development and connections to nature, as well as the family’s satisfaction with the program.

Setting

The nature-based program in this study was a preschool summer program in the Midwest USA supported through a partnership between two non-profit organizations. The first partner was an early childhood focused, community-based organization with the goal of raising the readiness rate of local school children from less than 50% in 2008 to 75% in future years. The second partner was a local outdoor education organization with the stated goal of advancing outdoor education and conservation activities in the region. Together, these partners offered a four-week program in the summer, involving a half-day (four hours) every weekday, for rising kindergarten students from multiple school districts across the geographical area. The goals of the summer program included preparing children for success in the kindergarten classroom and engaging them in outdoor activities. These goals were realized through building literacy/numeracy and social-emotional skills using appropriately designed teaching strategies and discovery-based play.

Over the course of the four weeks, participants met four hours each weekday. Daily routines included breakfast and lunch (~ 1 h total), child directed time for both indoor and outdoor play (~ 1.5 h total), hiking (~ 0.5 h), small groups (~ 0.3 h), and whole group meetings (~ 0.3 h). The remaining time (~ 0.4 h) was spent in transitions between tasks and clean-up. Over the four-week period, activities and learning were related to an insect-based curriculum that was written by staff at the outdoor education organization. Each week had a theme, including “Introduction to Insects,” “Insects on the Ground,” “Ants,” and “Insects that Can Fly.”

The curriculum guide included common rituals for children such as songs and rhymes, as well as common reading materials (i.e., books, stories, poems, etc.) relating to each week’s theme. Each week’s plan also included relevant facts, vocabulary, material lists, small group activities, enrichment activities, and intentional transition activities. Small group activities included literacy and numeracy skills. For literacy learning, children did activities like finding the first letter of their name on signage as they walked on hiking trails or creating letters from rocks and sticks. For numeracy, children engaged in activities like rolling a die and then collecting that number of natural objects or counting the number of segments on an insect.

For teachers’ reference, curriculum guides included specific learning goals phrased as “I can” statements (e.g., I can demonstrate knowledge of the alphabet; I can count to 20; I can regulate my own emotions and behaviors). For social-emotional outcomes, relevant Teaching Strategies GOLD (TS GOLD; Lambert, 2020) objectives were also included with each week’s plan. The curriculum also included workbooks, reading books, and other materials for caregivers to help them facilitate conversations and learning at home. Finally, a few “family days” were hosted at the program locations. These days provided opportunities for staff, children, and caregivers to be together and share in the learning experiences.

The current study included children from two different locations. However, staff at both locations went through identical training together, and the program took place over the same four-week period at both locations. As the locations were in fairly close proximity, weather and other like variables did not adversely affect one site more than the other (in terms of being able to go outside, etc.).

Participants

Recruiting for participation was conducted via face-to-face sign ups and electronic solicitation. Primary caregiver(s) gave consent for sixty-nine (69) children (ages 4–5) to participate in the study. Table 1 contains demographic information for these participants. In some cases, demographic information was not provided by the primary caregiver. Also note not all children completed every part of the study due to various reasons including dropping the program, being absent on data collection days, and/or hesitation on the part of children to assent to speak with researchers (which was always honored without undue coercion).

In addition to children, 48 caregivers responded to the face-to-face sign ups and electronic solicitations and consented into the study. Of these 48, 15 ultimately provided feedback. Five of the 15 participated in a face-to-face focus group. These participants all identified as female and indicated their ethnicity as White (n = 4) or Asian (n = 1). Focus group participants’ mean age was 35.2 and educational attainment included some college (40%), high school diploma (20%), associate’s degree (20%), and bachelor’s degree (20%). The remaining ten (10) caregivers, different from the focus group participants, completed an electronic questionnaire. These participants were all females with a mean age of 35.5. Online respondents indicated their ethnicity as White (n = 9) or other (n = 1), with educational attainment reported as bachelor’s degree (50%), high school diploma (30%), some college (10%), and professional degree (10%).

Table 1 Demographics of Participating Children (n = 69)
Full size table

Data collection, instrumentation, and measures

In an effort to obtain trustworthy data related to the three research questions, researchers utilized various quantitative instruments and qualitative data collection methods. A summary of information about data collection instruments/techniques, types of data collected and the time points, measured outcomes, participants involved, and the research question(s) addressed by each instrument or technique is collected in Table 2. Researchers collected both quantitative and qualitative data at different times and with different participant groups.

Table 2 Instruments, Types of Data Collected and Time Points, Participants, Measured Outcomes, and Research Questions Addressed
Full size table

Social-emotional outcomes

To address RQ1, researchers used caregivers’ responses and TS GOLD, which is an authentic, ongoing, observation-based assessment system. TS GOLD is one of the most widely-used performance-based instruments in early childhood (Russo et al., 2019), and it can be used regardless of the specific type of curriculum that is utilized (Lambert et al., 2015). According to Lambert et al., the instrument is also less intrusive and provides more ecological validity as it is based on everyday activities and artifacts.

TS GOLD data were collected by researchers who were trained to 80% or above interrater reliability by one of the investigators on the project. Observational assessments occurred in-person over the entirety of the four-week program, with beginning and ending measures used in this study (pre-post design). Observers used the information they collected on each child to rate their skills, knowledge, and behaviors along a 10-point progression of development and learning from Level 0 (i.e., “Not Yet”) to Level 9 (i.e., exceeds kindergarten expectations). Levels 2, 4, 6, and 8 on the progressions were “Indicators” and included varied examples from everyday situations that gave the observers guidance of what the evidence looked like with children. Levels 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 were “In-between” levels and did not include examples. After data collection, pre- and post-scores were marked at the appropriate level of progression and reported in aggregate for all children.

Although the full TS GOLD instrument includes 38 objectives across ten different areas of development and learning (Teaching Strategies, 2021), we focused on two specific areas in the current study: Social-Emotional and Cognitive Development. Specifically, the chosen objectives were related to the insect curriculum learning outcomes, and included the following:

Social-emotional area

Objective 1: Regulates own emotions and behaviors.

  1a: Manages feelings.

  1b: Follows limits and expectations.

  1c: Takes care of needs appropriately.

Objective 3: Participates cooperatively and constructively in group situations.

  3a: Balances needs and rights of self and others.

  3b: Solves social problems.

Cognitive area

Objective 11: Demonstrates positive approaches to learning.

  11a: Attends and engages.

  11c: Solves problems.

  11d: Shows curiosity and motivation.

Academic outcomes

In order to address RQ2, researchers used caregivers’ responses and the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) composite score. DIBELS data were provided by local school districts for most children, shortly after they transitioned to kindergarten (these data were not collected by the research team). DIBELS are researched-based measures that are demonstrated to be reliable and valid indicators of early literacy development (University of Oregon, 2018). The DIBELS composite score is a combination of all scores and “provides the best overall estimate of the children’s early literacy skills and/or reading proficiency” (University of Oregon, 2018).

Nature connections

To address RQ3, researchers analyzed caregivers’ responses and the Connection to Nature Index (CN; Cheng & Monroe, 2012). The CN was used to measure children’s connections to nature and consisted of 16 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 3 (neither agree nor disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Higher scores indicate stronger connections to nature. Survey items aggregated into four different constructs including Enjoyment of Nature, Empathy for Creatures, Sense of Oneness with Nature, and Sense of Responsibility toward nature.

Each child participant met with a researcher for two separate sessions, once during the first week of the program and again during the last week (pre-post design). In all cases, participants verbally assented to coming with a researcher to an office space, classroom, or appropriate outdoor setting. Participants were in semi-open environments but were comfortably away from other children. CN survey items were presented orally, with researchers asking the questions and children indicating their answers on pre-printed templates. Children were given an opportunity to choose small prizes (e.g., stickers, erasers, etc.) after completing a session.

Caregivers’ perspectives

Caregiver responses informed all three research questions and were collected via face-to-face focus groups or electronic questionnaires. The five caregivers who participated in the face-to-face focus group session met on-site at a program location. The focus group was facilitated by one researcher, while three others took notes. As participants entered the room, they approached numbered spaces and randomly selected a space at which to sit. Informed consent forms were distributed and collected, which also included demographic questions, two open-ended questions, and three Likert-scale questions (on a four-point scale; see Table 3). At the beginning of the session, participants were asked to share their first name. Researchers then proceeded with the main questions and probes identified in Table 3. Focus group participants were identified by their seat number for the purposes of data collection, transcription, and analysis. The remaining 10 caregiver participants responded to an online, electronic questionnaire. The electronic questionnaire was sent via email to all consented families (minus those who already participated in the focus group). Respondents answered a set of common questions, then proceeded to specific questions (Table 3).

Data analysis

SPSS version 27 was used for all statistical analyses. Pre-post measures of social-emotional outcomes from the TS GOLD were compared using the nonparametric, Wilcoxon signed rank test. This test was deemed more appropriate than a paired t-test as the data were not normally distributed (according to the Shapiro-Wilk test). In all comparisons, pairwise deletion was used to ensure each child in the comparison had both pre- and post-scores.

As the measure for environmental attitudes (i.e., CN survey) used a Likert-based scoring system that involved collapsing items into constructs, internal consistency for each construct was checked using Cronbach’s alpha. The following Cronbach’s α scores were calculated for each construct: Enjoyment (α = 0.78), Oneness (α = 0.54), Responsibility (α = 0.61), and Empathy (α = 0.71). As alpha scores for Oneness and Responsibility were below accepted thresholds (i.e., α = 0.70; Bland & Altman, 1997), these constructs were dropped from the study. The remaining constructs were compared pre-post using the Wilcoxon signed rank test (as these results were not normally distributed). Again, pairwise deletion was used to ensure each child in the comparison had both pre- and post-scores.

Early literacy DIBELS composite scores were analyzed using frequency distributions to determine how many children were in each of three levels: At or Above, Below or Approaching, or Well Below benchmark. At or Above benchmark indicated 80–90% odds of achieving future early literacy goals; Below or Approaching indicated 40–60% odds; Well Below indicated 10–20% odds (University of Oregon, 2018).

Table 3 Questions and Probes Used for Focus Group and/or Electronic Questionnaires
Full size table

Caregiver responses were analyzed in two separate batches. The first batch included responses to questions related to outdoor/nature habits and connections to nature (see Table 3). The second batch was responses to questions about social-emotional and academic development. In both batches, all Likert-scale questions were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Open responses from the focus group were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and combined with open-ended electronic responses. All qualitative responses were then coded by two researchers using an inductive, constant comparative method (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Themes were derived from the two batches (i.e., outdoor/nature habits and connection to nature responses; social-emotional and academic development responses). In all, 117 separate segments of text were identified and coded.

Data mixing for interpretation

Data from the different sources and methods were mixed for the purpose of complementarity in order to further understand how the nature-based preschool program impacted social-emotional outcomes, academic outcomes, and connections to nature (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018; Greene, 2007).

Findings and implications

Social-emotional outcomes (RQ1)

In regard to social-emotional outcomes, the quantitative and qualitative data complemented each other and revealed a pattern of positive, significant growth in regard to children’s social-emotional skills. Table 4 contains quantitative data from the pre-post comparison of TS GOLD scores. Results indicated children had statistically significant, positive growth in all social/emotional areas tested, with the exception of Balances Needs (3a; which did not change significantly). The largest gain was in the area of Solves Problems (11c), with an average mean gain of 0.84 from pre-to-post.

Qualitative data provided deeper insights into children’s social-emotional development, as one of the major themes that emerged was called Positive Child Outcomes and specifically related to social-emotional growth in many cases. For example, one caregiver commented how her daughter gained independence, confidence, and motivation as a result of the program. “We love [the program]. Our daughter seemed highly motivated and enjoyed the curriculum.” Another caregiver shared, “[Our daughter] is on a better schedule, plays better with siblings, and also seems to behave more at home.” Another caregiver simply wrote, “More independent,” when asked about the effects the program had on their child. Other comments supporting social-emotional growth included: “[The program] allowed my child to grasp his newfound confidence with joy instead of hesitation.”; “My baby transitioned into his OWN BED this summer!” The findings associated with social-emotional development suggest short-term interventions may be viable options for children who are not able to attend full-day programs.

Academic outcomes (RQ2)

In regard to academic readiness, Table 5 shows DIBELS results as reported by kindergartens in the fall following the summer program. These results showed that 57.1% of children with reported scores were at or above benchmark level and 16.1% were approaching benchmark after participating in the summer program. Frankly, these data have limited usefulness as they were collected after the completion of the summer program. Furthermore, due to the way in which academic data were collected (i.e., post-only with no comparison group), it is impossible to link any specific literacy changes to the nature-based program.

Table 4 Descriptive and Wilcoxon Signed Rank Inferential Statistics for TS GOLD Pre- and Post-Scores for All Children
Full size table
Table 5 DIBELS Composite Score Distributions (n = 56)
Full size table

However, caregivers reported an increase in academic readiness following the program. “Academically, he’s ready,” one caregiver noted. Another caregiver shared that “even though I may be doing dishes or something, he’s out there teaching [his brother] what he learned at school.” Other responses suggested the materials and experiences provided by the program supported positive academic activities in the home, including things like reading more and engaging in workbook activities related to nature. Also, the findings showing children’s social-emotional skills improved over the program are important as teachers and caregivers believe the most important skills entering kindergarten are social-emotional skills because they establish a solid foundation for learning academic skills including early literacy (Wildenger & McIntyre, 2011).

Connections to nature (RQ3)

Researchers in this current study hypothesize the improved social-emotional outcomes could be due, at least in part, to the nature-based component. McCree et al. (2018) suggested the outdoors provides “emotional space” for children and can positively contribute to social and emotional development. In addition, McMahan and Estes (2015) documented how outdoor activities promoted positive emotions, including how even brief encounters with nature can increase well-being.

Table 6 includes results from the Connection to Nature Index (CN) survey. All post-scores increased slightly, although not significantly. Also, all of the mean averages increased from the 3.00 range to over 4.00 (the potential importance of this change will be discussed in a later section). Gains were also fairly consistent across the three constructs: Overall Connection (+ 0.16), Enjoyment of Nature (+ 0.20 and approaching significance), and Empathy for Creatures (+ 0.22).

Table 6 Descriptive and Wilcoxon Signed Rank Inferential Statistics for Pre-Post Comparisons of CN Survey Data by Construct
Full size table

Although no significant changes in connections to nature were detected from CN survey results, mean changes indicated children moved from “neutral” connections to nature to “good” connections (Table 6). These interpretations are based on the work of Cheng and Monroe (2012), who provided the following guidelines in terms of CN scores: “1–2” range indicates a general disconnect from nature; scores around “3” indicate neutral connections to nature; scores in the “4–5” range indicate good connections to nature.

Researchers understood from caregivers’ feedback that children enjoyed the program and its outdoor activities. Qualitative analysis revealed three themes that related to how children enjoyed the outdoors, how children’s awareness and specific interests in nature changed, and how children engaged in science at home and shared scientific ideas with others. Table 7 summarizes these three themes by providing exemplary quotes for each.

Overall, children showed more interest in the outdoors and talked more often about science at home. Caregivers attributed the increased interest directly to the program, so it seems as if the program had a positive impact, although not enough to improve attitudes. Perhaps the intervention was too short. More study is needed in this area to determine how long it might take and what specific activities might affect preschoolers’ attitudes toward the environment. With this additional information, researchers can determine best practices at the preschool level for promoting positive changes in how children connect with nature.

Routine (emergent finding)

Although not an explicit research question entering the study, inductive analysis of qualitative data revealed a major theme of the program was the maintenance of routines. Specifically, caregivers emphasized that routine helped keep children socially engaged and emotionally stable. For example, one mother stated, “It’s really cool, especially because my son is autistic and having a consistency for him for the summer has been tremendous. Because he will actually start school on Monday, so it’s like he never stops doing school.” Another caregiver commented, “It was helpful to keep learning, playing with new friends, and staying used to a routine to break up the summer break.”

Routines during the summer program seemed to provide caregivers and their children with comfort in terms of starting Kindergarten. Even small routines like providing meals contributed to their comfort level, as did routines like consistent bedtimes so that children would be ready the next day. Furthermore, caregivers also linked routine to family interactions.

Specifically, the workbooks, family days, and reading books provided by the program allowed families to establish their own routines for family interactions. Some studies suggest routines, particularly those associated with the broader family, can have positive effects on social-emotional health (Muñiz et al., 2014). In the current study, caregivers were definitely able to see for themselves the academic and social-emotional growth in their child. In summary, caregivers were confident their children and families were prepared for formal schooling, in part because of the summer routines.

Table 7 Themes and Quotes Supporting Changes in Children’s Attitudes Toward Nature and Science
Full size table

Limitations

The findings from this study represent the limited experiences of a small group of preschool children in one nature-based summer program in the Midwest USA. Furthermore, no control or comparison groups were included, so other unknown variables could have contributed to some of the findings. The study also included limited academic outcome measures. Although social-emotional outcomes are critically important, more academic measures should be included in the future to determine the potential impact of these short-term interventions on literacy and numeracy.

Moreover, this study relied on caregiver’s perspectives of developmental outcomes following the nature-based preschool experience and did not account for the perspectives of other stakeholders, such as educational team members involved in the program. Also, this study did not account for differing cultural perspectives and assumptions other than those of the dominant culture regarding the importance of various developmental milestones. Since children’s development and behavior cannot be separated from cultural values and systems, the findings from this study should be interpreted with this limitation in mind.

Finally, the fact that many children in this study scored higher in terms of environmental attitudes at the beginning of the program may indicate a selection bias, as enrollment in this summer program may have been favored by children/caregivers/families who were already more connected to nature than others. We are unable to ascertain if this was the case in the current study. Consequently, this study revealed some potential limitations of the CN survey when used at this age level. The low reliability scores in Oneness and Responsibility (see Methods) reduced the explanatory power of the findings. In future studies, we will test alternative wording that may be more appropriate for this level.

Conclusion

The findings from this study must be considered in light of the limitations. However, they indicated that children made significant growth in terms of their social-emotional skills while participating in a four-week, nature-based summer program. In the fall, immediately after the summer program, the majority of this group of children showed appropriate academic growth indicative of future success in the first year of formal schooling. Despite the distinct nature-based component of the program, children’s connections to nature did not significantly change. Nevertheless, caregivers reported several ways in which the program altered children’s views of the environment and their behaviors toward nature. Moreover, the majority of caregivers were satisfied with the program and felt their child and their families were prepared for kindergarten. Interestingly, the positive routines established by participating in the summer program played a central role in caregivers’ perceptions. The ecological and dynamic approach of the program to connect children to each other, the community, and nature while involving families and focusing on social-emotional and academic outcomes shows promise. However, it is also clear from this study that additional research is needed in the context of preschool programs to determine the specific factors contributing directly to improved social-emotional skills. As social-emotional health is so important to future success (McCabe & Altamura, 2011), and many teachers and caregivers associate academic preparedness with social-emotional function (Hatcher et al., 2012), gaining better understanding in this area is critically important.