Cent. Eur. For. J. 67 (2021) 14–20
original paper
DOI: 10.2478/forj-2020-0028
http://www.nlcsk.sk/fj/
Forest educators as bearers and implementers of deep ecology ideas
Karolina Macháčková
Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Kamýcká 129, CZ – 165 00, Praha 6 - Suchdol,
Czech Republic
Abstract
People think very little about the consequences of consumer and ecological manners. Responsibility for raising chil-
dren to sustainable behaviour is transmitted to educational institutions that bear the full weight of this burden. Non-
teaching experts such as foresters enter the educational process. These specialists are called “forest educators”. At
the 14th European Forest Pedagogics Congress 2019 in Latvia, 167 forest educators from Europe met, and 52 of
them were willing to participate in a qualitative research survey. This paper aimed to identify why foresters, as people
without pedagogical education and despite the unfavourable funding, become educators. The following questions
guided this research: What leads them to start organizing educational and adventure programmes for children and the
public? Is their intrinsic motivation based on an unconscious level to implement ideas of Deep Ecology? Philosophy
of Arne Naess and semi-structured interviews with forest educators in the form of the Pyramid Model of Wengraf,
through which qualitative data were obtained, methodologically approached this paper. Interviews with foresters
revealed their values, needs, motivation, dominant psychological-ethical moments and prosocial behaviour that
brings inner satisfaction and pedagogical activity as an added value of their profession. Forest educators have a unique
philosophical system related to nature and the environment. They subconsciously follow and develop the ideas of Deep
Ecology through the methods of Forest Pedagogy. The paper presents the way of involving forest educators into the
distance and online teaching due to the Coronavirus pandemic, as well as the topic for further research in this area.
Key words: Arne Naess; ecosophy; education for the 21st century; Forest Pedagogy online; Wengraf Pyramid model
Editor: Bohdan Konôpka
1. Introduction
The cause of the ecological crisis is due to human attitudes
of superiority over nature. The creation of a new harmoni-
ous relationship between humans and nature is the goal for
a deeply oriented environmental movement, which is
associated with the name of the Norwegian philoso-
pher Arne Naess (1912–2009), who considers his ideas
as “nonviolent and long-lasting revolution” (Naess 1989,
1993). It seems time has come to resurrect and bring to
mind the ideas of Arne Naess, who gave the world a cohe-
rent philosophy and the necessary dose of radicality. His
appeal seems to be up to date these days.
Modern society is harming the environment. The
Value Objectivism characterizes Deep Ecology: animals
have value in themselves and the right to live, even though
they are not directly useful to humans. Naess (1989)
accentuates a universally shared lifestyle that is sustain-
able without injuring other life forms. Arne Naess‘s ideas
can be well applied in education for the 21st century,
which must reflect current global challenges such as cli-
mate changes, global economic stability, labour market
trends, impending energy crisis, depletion of non-renew-
able fossil fuels, poverty, and inadequate medical care
(Bolstad et al. 2012). Slaughter (1974) states that the
long-term intention of the educational system must con-
cern broader social, political, and economic objectives.
Education is the key to make society move towards
sustainable and ecological perception (Britto 2017).
Dumont et al. (2010) introduce seven principles of learn-
ing and teaching for the 21st century. Main pillars are (1)
Learners at the centre; (2) The social nature of learning;
(3) Emotions are integral to the learning process; (4)
Recognizing individual differences; (5) Stretching all
students; (6) Assessment for learning; (7) Building hori-
zontal connection. It is precisely the point (3), intuition,
emotionality, and empathy, thanks to which, according
to Naess (1989), the individual acquires the truth about
the world and wisdom.
Naess (1989) considers nature as the best source of
knowledge; however, the disadvantage of many environ-
mental education programmes is that they show nature
*Corresponding author. Karolina Macháčková, e-mail: machackovak@fld.czu.cz, phone: +420 720 554 799
K. Machackova / Cent. Eur. For. J. 67 (2021) 14–20
from an adult perspective, which is too abstracted for
the child‘s perception in the early years. Naess suggests
that the essential tool for the knowledge of nature is the
non-rational form of cognition, empathy, identification
through emotions, not through reason. Humans perceive
nature by empathy more objectively than scientifically.
That is the reason why education should consist of events
and creative activities; there is not a sharp line between
learning and action (Naess 1989, 1993). How we relate
to nature is a matter of feeling, so Naess recommends
getting feelings into learning as well and emphasizes that
feelings have cognitive value (Devall & Sessions 2007).
This point of view is supported by Wedlichová (2011):
sensory experiences can increase emotional intelligence
in children.
Environmental education and training for sustain-
able behaviour are closely related to the natural environ-
ment. We can hardly find a better example of sustainable
management for centuries than in forestry. In nature, it is
the best to demonstrate methods to improve sustainable
development and environmental education. Slee (2001)
considers forest to be a natural framework, essential for
human existence and development as forests perform
many functions-protective, medicinal, economic, rec-
reational, and educational. Could it be the reason why
foresters enter the educational process?
Forest Pedagogy represents neoteric sustainability
education that corresponds to the philosophy of Deep
Ecology, affecting emotions, will, and awareness. The
basic principle of Forest Pedagogy is the perception of
nature by all senses, according to Pestalozzi‘s concept
of “learning with head, heart, and hand” (Kuhlemann &
Brühlmeier 2002). Cornell (1991, 1998, 2012) qualifies
Forest Pedagogy as a form of public relations and social
phenomenon that includes environmental education,
institutions, associations, forest schools and describes
four levels of experience: awakening enthusiasm, focus-
ing attention, direct experience, and sharing inspiration.
The term “forest educator” is currently used and uni-
fied in the international forest environment and means
a Forest Pedagogy Lecturer as a professional forester
with pedagogical education gained by a particular course.
Experts with forestry education or experience in forestry
who have completed a Forest Pedagogy course accredited
by the relevant Ministry of Agriculture of the given state
can become forest educators. Forest Pedagogy courses
are of two types and take 40 hours each. The introductory
one, where foresters learn the fundamentals of pedagogy,
psychology and didactics, and are trained to work with
class groups of kindergartens, primary and secondary
schools. The advanced course is intended for graduates
of the introductory course and expands the target groups
by adults, seniors and groups with special educational
needs. Forest Pedagogy courses are compatible with
courses in other European countries and are based on the
outputs of the European project PAWS (Pädagogische
Arbeit im Wald).
The common goal of foresters and teachers should
be to organize a lesson in which pupils better under-
stand the context of nature. The forest would serve as
a unique classroom, combining the experience of the
forester with the teacher‘s expertise. This approach con-
nects pedagogy-experience and nature (Machar 2009),
where pupils meet their teachers working as a team
member and gain valuable social experience. Stern et al.
(2010) revealed that specific characteristics of teachers,
particularly enthusiasm, interest in the matter, sincerity
and charisma, are strongly associated with more positive
pupils achievements. Other authors support the impor-
tance of demonstrating genuine care of students (Russel
2000; Ballantyne et al. 2001; Fien & Packer 2001) and
providing a holistic experience (Tilden 1957; Skibins et
al. 2012). Stern et al. (2008) found that when teachers are
actively involved in on-site lessons with instructors, stu-
dents‘ outcomes are generally more positive. The findings
suggest that teachers and other adults play a crucial role
in environmental literacy development (Emmons 1997;
Rickinson 2001; Sivek 2002; Stern et al. 2008, 2010).
Increasing aggression of children and heavy mental
burden accompany the educational process. Children are
alienated from nature, showing no interest in education
(Mazáčová 2001; Bajtoš & Honzíková 2007). Burnout
often occurs in the teaching profession, and the education
sector is often under-funded in many countries. Liu et
al. (2000) reported that in the USA teaching is a signifi-
cantly less prestigious profession than others in terms of
income, with teachers earning among the lowest annual
salaries of their college cohort (Henke et al. 2000, as cited
in Liu et al. 2000). Teachers work under the scrutiny of
parents and the media without sufficient job satisfac-
tion (Spear et al. 2000; Lai et al. 2001; Hoyle 2008).
Much of the existing literature on teachers‘ motivation
to teach coming from western countries found teachers
to be motivated mainly by intrinsic and altruistic motives
such as nurturing students‘ growth (Sinclair 2008). They
believe they contribute to society and may consider teach-
ing as a vocation (Spear et al. 2000; Scott et al. 2001;
Richardson & Watt 2006; Alexander 2008).
This paper aims to identify why foresters, as people
without pedagogical education and despite the unfavour-
able financial valuation, become educators. The follow-
ing questions guided the research: What made them start
organizing educational and adventure programmes? Is
their intrinsic motivation based on an unconscious level
to implement ideas of Deep Ecology? Semi-structured
interviews methodologically approached this topic with
forest educators in the form of the Pyramid Model of
Wengraf, through which qualitative data were obtained.
The results may contribute to understanding better
the content of work, formal and legal issues as well as
employment conditions of forest educators and improve
their relations with teachers. Education is an integral part
of forestry, in particular as forest tenure changes, and
now the share of private forest ownership is large. The
15
K. Machackova / Cent. Eur. For. J. 67 (2021) 14–20
growing public interest in the recreational function of the
forest makes forest education now more crucial than ever.
2. Material and methods
In recent years, there has been an increase in new criteria
to assess the quality of qualitative research. In a plethora
of modern terms, many modern concepts can be found
such as imperial validity, ironic validity, situational
validity, neopragmatism validity, rhizomatic validity,
overt validity, instrumental validity, or theoretical valid-
ity (Altheide & Johnson 1994). Based on the above, the
qualitative research was carried out, as qualitative data
naturally describe the situation and aims to understand
people and the events in their lives (Gavora 2008). The
interviewee fully expresses subjective opinions and indi-
cates relations and contexts (Hendl 2016). Qualitative
research is not based on any hypothesis or theory but
tries to outline a new theory (Švaříček & Šeďová 2007).
The advantage of the interview is also a significantly
higher proportion of completed interviews compared to
the return rate of the questionnaires, and also the pos-
sibility to clarify responses which have not been previ-
ously appropriately understood and the researcher is
sure to speak to the intended person (Disman 2002).
In this paper, the method of the in-depth individual
semi-structured interview was applied. The Pyramid
Model of the interview was used to create the interview
scheme (Wengraf 2001). This model consisted of a cen-
tral research question, theory questions, and particular
interview questions.
2.1. Research sample
The first criterion was that all of the respondents for
qualitative research were forest educators actively pur-
suing their profession. The second criterion was an
international comparison. An available opportunity
was the 14th European Forest Pedagogics Congress
2019 in Riga, Latvia, with international participation of
one hundred sixty-seven forest educators from eighteen
European countries. The third criterion was the diversity
of organizations in which forest educators operate, i.e.
Urban or State Forests, Forest Learning Centers, Envi-
ronmental Centers, and Youth Homes.
The research sample included fifty-two active forest
educators from various forestry organizations from five
regions of the Czech Republic (18), as well as foresters
from Finland (2), Norway (3), Latvia (9), Germany (5),
Poland (3), Slovakia (4), Slovenia (3), Luxembourg (5)
and other countries. The qualitative data collection was
in progress from 1st July to 31st October 2019 during the
congress, and after its completion, interviews with for-
est educators took place via Google Meet and Microsoft
Teams online. Subsequently, the text was submitted to
the respondents for authorization.
The structure of questions according to the Pyramid
Wengraf model (2001) is as follows:
The main research question
What made foresters become educators, what does the
profession bring to them and what motivates them?
Specific Research Question 1
What work experience and education did the foresters
have before they become educators?
–– Forestry education,
–– pedagogical education,
–– previous experience from leisure activities.
Specific Research Question 2
What influenced the decision of the forest educator to
choose his new professional focus?
–– Previous positions,
–– financial remuneration,
–– other reasons.
Specific Research Question 3
How do forest educators perceive their profession?
–– Positives and negatives,
–– how should ideal forest educator look like?
Probing, based on questions and non-verbal hints,
was used to deepen answers in a particular direction.
A problem-oriented interview, tailored to the research
goal was conducted. Transcripts of interviews were
transformed and interpreted to capture the complexity
of the examined phenomenon. The Open coding for data
evaluation and the ATLAS.ti programmes were used,
where each significant sentence, word, or phrase, was
highlighted and assigned a code representing the essence
of the text. According to the codes, information was com-
pared to each other, merging and integrating similar and
related semantic units.
3. Results
On the answers obtained from the interviews conducted
according to the Pyramid Model by Wengraf (2001), data
were analyzed and interpreted.
3.1. Education and professional experience
of forest educators
3.1.1 Forest Education
Almost all (49) forest educators addressed have a forestry
education and completed a course in Forest Pedagogy,
which is an essential condition for practising this profes-
sion. A minimal number of foresters (3) do not have a for-
estry education, which is compensated by no less than ten
years of experience in environmental education centres.
16
K. Machackova / Cent. Eur. For. J. 67 (2021) 14–20
3.1.2 Pedagogical education
All respondents (52) are graduates at least an introduc-
tory Forest Pedagogy course. More than half of them (38)
also have a certificate from the extension course. Every-
one confirms that the course is beneficial, as they know
the basics of didactics, psychology, have the opportunity
to meet new colleagues and acquire inspiration for future
work. Forest educators mostly agree that without the
basics of developmental psychology and the basics of peda-
gogy, I would probably not know how to engage children.
Sixteen foresters already have a bachelor‘s pedagogical
education obtained in college. Four of them are currently
studying vocational subjects or leisure-time education.
Foresters who are interested in further pedagogical edu-
cation are those for whom Forest Pedagogy takes up more
than half of their working time. Foresters who provide
Forest Pedagogy activities beyond their work duties, do
not consider the further pedagogical study. However,
they all agree that the basics of pedagogy, psychology,
and didactics are desirable. Otherwise, this would affect
the quality of the programmes.
3.1.3 Free-time pedagogy
Most forest educators have been interested in nature,
experiential education, and children since their youth,
as head of children‘s camps, Scout, or another organiza-
tion. One answer for all: As a child, I liked going to summer
camps in the countryside, and I am glad that I can bring
this hobby to my job as well. Most of the respondents (46)
have tacit knowledge in organizing leisure and free-time
activities.
3.2. What influenced the decision to become
a forest educator
Only a third of the foresters (17) carried out this activity
on a full-time basis and had to leave their existing post.
The others focus on the main content of the work, such
as forest recreational function, forest protection, or for-
est management, so their pedagogical activities take up
only part of their working time. Respondents often spend
free time preparing Forest Pedagogy activities and do it
beyond their job, in many cases for free or for a symbolic
allowance only. Especially the statements of the Czech
and Slovak forest educators show that the management
of forest enterprises prefers non-pedagogical content of
work.
3.2.1 Previous employment
The previous job position remains, and educational activ-
ity is included in addition. The scenario prevails, where
foresters participated in environmental and leisure activi-
ties (Scout, Forest Pedagogy course) and the supervisor
then offered them the opportunity to attend the course
and become a forest educator.
3.2.2 Financial aspect
Forest educators coincide that salaries did not play a role
in their decision-making. One forest educator describes
it as follows: It is not possible to get rich in Forest Peda-
gogy. When it becomes a business, enthusiasm is lost. At
present, in many European countries, the profession of a
forest educator is not well-paid for generating a separate
full income. Thanks to these facts, it is not appropriate
to expect the forester to perceive Forest Pedagogy as
a profession, but rather as a hobby, especially in the post-
communist countries where Forest Pedagogy does not
have such a tradition.
3.2.3 Raison d‘etre for Forest Pedagogy
The vast majority of forest educators say this is due to
the variety and creativity of their profession. They praise
not to have office work, duties are diverse, and the job
brings satisfaction. There are considerable differences
between countries.
Forest educators from Austria state that although
in their country forest education courses are open to
all interested, only a graduate with forestry education
receive the certificate and only the certificate holder can
be financially supported.
Polish forest educators report that at least one full-
time forest educator is available at each forest administra-
tion in Poland and offers four follow-up programmes for
each season. The average Polish Baccalaureate attends,
on average, thirty Forest Pedagogy lessons. It may affect
young people in the future on Forest Pedagogy.
Estonians are considered “forest nation” and want to
raise awareness about the forest among the public, espe-
cially in preschool children, and find many candidates
interested during the Forest Weeks.
Foresters from Finland are also motivated by mate-
rial reasons: there are many forest owners in Finland,
and every sixth schoolchild is expected to own the forest
in the future, so children should be informed about it.
To educate the schoolchild, efforts to engage teachers
and so the Finnish Forestry Association, together with
teachers, created publications and websites to support
teaching at schools.
The situation in the Czech Republic is significantly
different. A frequently mentioned reason for forest educa-
tors from the Czech Republic is the possibility to “clarify”
the forestry and forester‘s reputation negatively affected
by media and to provide nature-oriented upbringing and
awareness-raising. Forest Pedagogy is one of the ways to
attract people to the forest and also to improve the image
of forestry. A curious reason for being a forest educator
was mentioned by one female, who received the answer
to the question: “Who is the most significant pest in the
17
K. Machackova / Cent. Eur. For. J. 67 (2021) 14–20
forest?” Answer: Forester. It was precisely the moment
when she decided to change the image of forestry in the
eyes of the general public in the Czech Republic.
what was happening around. Many forest educators have
lost their expectations about the basic knowledge of the
public about forest and nature and the respect that people
should have for nature.
3.3. Perception of Forest Pedagogy
Distinctions between countries are evident. Each forest
educator devotes to Forest Pedagogy and educational
programmes in another way and has different time and
financial support, which are based on how a particular
forestry enterprise approaches Forest Pedagogy.
3.3.1 Pros and Cons of Forest Pedagogy
All respondents agreed that the most considerable advan-
tage of Forest Pedagogy is the possibility to get people
into the countryside, to familiarize them with the forest
environment, what is in line with Forest Pedagogy goals
(Harkabus & Marušáková 2007). Forest educators can
arrange the programmes, be it a theme, games, activities,
or a place to go and appreciate having contact with new
people and the possibility of self-education, socialization,
and self-realization. They mostly appreciate attending
seminars, lectures, and meetings organized for forest
educators where they can learn and inspire. Young female
forest educators expect to gain experience and skills in
activities with children in nature, which they can use in
raising their kids. They see what today-kids are missing.
Half of the forest educators prepare programmes and
materials during free time. Almost half of the respondents
regret not to have sufficient financial or moral support
at their employers. Forest educators, especially from the
former post-communist states, repeatedly complained
that the public does not appreciate their work and con-
siders it inferior. Many professional foresters look at
their colleagues with absolute disrespect. They consider
Forest Pedagogy to be entertainment only. Another dis-
advantage is that forest educator has no chance to get
to know the children accurately in a short period, and
cannot cooperate with them in contrast to regular leisure
activities or school lessons.
To respond to the question of whether the foresters
lost something in carrying out their educational activities,
embarrassing answers were received. Some admit that
this activity deprives them of illusions, mainly of teach-
ers’ cooperation with them and how some teachers treat
children and foresters. Following are presented the words
of one forester: I think that teachers are afraid to “hand
over” their pupils to us as if they are afraid of losing control
and power. Sometimes the teacher comes in a bad mood,
and his current mental state is unfortunately passed on
to children. They are then bored, and it is complicated
to master the discipline. This experience was repeated:
When several classes came at the same time, the teachers
stood apart and talked among themselves and showed no
interest in the pupils. I was then very disappointed that
the teachers wrote a critical assessment, not even knowing
3.3.2 The idea of an ideal forest educator
The final question of the interview concerns the char-
acteristics, abilities, experience, and education of ideal
forest educator should have. Two streams of opinion
emerge from the respondents’ answers. Twenty-seven
would appreciate practising Forest Pedagogy at full-time:
I would have time to refresh content, innovate games, have
more scope and support. Collaboration with schools could
be planned and implemented in the long term without the
risk of any other event interfering with the plan.
However, the other half (25) of forest educators
strongly disagree with this and believe that foresters
should only do this part-time. They are satisfied that they
do not have to do educational plans every day and are
engaged in other activities, and Forest Pedagogy does
not become a routine matter. There is also an opinion
that: Forest educator is not an independent profession and
should not be in the future. It is something in addition to
the professional forest focus.
4. Discussion
Forest educators are introduced as professional foresters
with pedagogical education gained by a particular course
(Cornell 1991; Bolay & Reichle 2007). There is no rel-
evant article or study that would examine in more detail
the reasons and motives of foresters, why they voluntar-
ily and despite the low funding undertake pedagogical
courses so that they can act as teachers of their kind.
The paper aimed to identify why foresters enter the
educational process and if their intrinsic motivation is
based on the subconscious level of Deep Ecology think-
ing. Interviews showed that foresters have a specific per-
sonal framework of values related to human and nature
issues. For forest educators, ecology is not just a theory
but a deep conviction. They are probably not even aware,
their stance to life reflects a deep ecological feeling that
has roots in A. Naesse’s conception. Forest educators try
to pass on the depth of knowledge and experience, live
in nature and with nature, not just visit it. They show the
public how to move in the forest without consequences,
respecting all life forms, not just those beautiful, remark-
able, or useful. They teach not to use living beings only
as a resource; leading to the recognition of their intrinsic
value. Forest educators protect the forest ecosystem as a
whole, not just individual life forms and show that peo-
ple living in urban areas can be connected with nature
even in a disturbed environment, as parts of green can be
found everywhere. The ideas of Deep Ecology are based
on these rudiments (Naess 1989, 1993).
Why do foresters engage in education despite many
obstacles, misunderstandings and inadequate funding?
18
K. Machackova / Cent. Eur. For. J. 67 (2021) 14–20
One of the reasons is the general effort of foresters to
explain objectively the distorted information dissemi-
nated by the media relating the bark beetle calamity. All
the foresters addressed agree that they have the honour
to carry out highly professional activities for nature and
future generations and do it with enthusiasm, even if
the result of their effort is difficult to measure. Foresters
believe their activities have a deeper meaning. Interest,
a positive attitude to nature, and self-realization force
them to go forward. Their job offers an opportunity for the
initiative, responsibility, and knowledge growth. Forest-
ers consider their calling essential and are willing to devote
to it, although they often do not get extra money for their
endeavour. The profession of forest educator has a psycho-
logical-ethical moment-the chance to educate someone
else is perceived as a reward. Forest educators consider as
a substantial intrinsic value of the job to broaden horizons
for someone else and to expand the moral compass. The
above is consistent with the motives of intrinsic motiva-
tion presented by Dieblová (2005).
Forest educators understand the context of nature
very well, their tacit knowledge goes beyond school text-
books of natural history, and they could be a functional
link between the public and the natural ecosystem. Based
on strong inner convictions and enthusiasm, it is recom-
mended to involve them in school curricula to provide
transmission of knowledge and experience to children.
The content of School Education Programmes can be
arranged in the school curriculum in coherent parts,
such as modules or blocks using parallel support by close
cooperation with a local forest centre.
The Coronavirus pandemic increases the demands on
the form and methodology of teaching. The Ministries of
Education of the affected states now more recommend
including full-time educational activities held in the
school garden, playground, park and school surround-
ings, where there is no accumulation of more people in
order to reduce epidemiological risks, improve the overall
health, concentration and well-being of pupils and teach-
ers. Many parents and teachers perceive outdoor learning
as too risky and unsafe. The presence of a forest educa-
tor, as an expert on a stay in nature, should eliminate the
concerns of parents.
In pandemically affected areas, pupils are not
present at school and are educated synchronously and
asynchronously. There is also a new dimension for the
online inclusion of forest educators into the teaching
process of those subjects that have nature and science as
a basis. A forest educator wearing a livery can engage chil-
dren with his demeanour, speech, personal example, pos-
itive attitude and commitment. The forest-dressed educa-
tor does not fit into uniformity of civilian teachers and can
pass on knowledge and context of a different dimension
than the science teacher could. Forest Pedagogy methods
can also be manifested in the distance form; the forest
educator assigns tasks, for which pupils have to get out
in nature and together with their classmates in the online
forum share their experiences of the forest. The growing
ability to recognize the signs of upcoming changes in the
forest that children would report to the forester could be
regarded as an added value. The looming negative phe-
nomena in the forest can thus be identified and resolved
at the beginning. Even if only one child is enthusiastic
about this idea, it would be a significant help to foresters,
who, due to the scale of their activities, may not always
be able to detect all changes in their district immediately.
This way of teaching could help and solve the problem
even for teachers who do not support outdoor activities.
5. Conclusion
Involving professionals into education is desirable and
beneficial-due to the differences between learning about
versus learning from an expert (Berliner 2001; Guskey &
Yoon 2009). Children are not passive recipients only, they
are often the initiators of new manners, and by constitut-
ing their relationship to nature, it is realistic to expect the
effect that is secondarily transmitted on parents.
The involvement of forest educators in distance teach-
ing will be the theme of further research survey, where
the Experimental group (online tuition with forest educa-
tor) would be compared with the Control group (distance
education by the teacher) through a didactic test.
Acknowledgements
A warm thanks to the forest educators for their willingness and
patience to answer the questions.
References
Alexander, P. A., 2008: Charting the course for the teach-
ing profession: The energizing and sustaining role
of motivational forces. Learning & Instruction, 18:
483–491.
Altheide, D. L., Johnson, J. M., 1994: Criteria for assess-
ing interpretive validity in qualitative research. In:
Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.): Handbook of qual-
itative research. Thousand Oaks, Sage, p. 485– 499.
Bajtoš, J., Honzíkova, J., 2007: Vybrané statě školní peda-
gogiky. Plzeň, Západočeská univerzita v Plzni., 192 p.
Ballantyne, R., J. Fien., J. Packer., 2001: School Envi-
ronmental Education Programmesme Impacts upon
Student and Family Learning: A Case Study Analysis.
Environmental Education Research, 7:23–37.
Berliner, D. C., 2001: Learning about and learning from
expert teachers. International Journal of Educational
Research, 35:463–482.
Bolay, E., Reichle, B., 2007: Waldpädagogik. Schneider
Verlag: Esslingen, 298 p.
Bolstad, R., Gilbert, J., McDowall, S., Bull, A., Boyd, S.,
Hipkins, R., 2012: Supporting future-oriented learn-
ing and teaching: A New Zealand perspective (Report
prepared for the Ministry of Education). Wellington,
New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
19
K. Machackova / Cent. Eur. For. J. 67 (2021) 14–20
Britto, P. R., 2017: Early Moments Matter for every
child [online]. Published by UNICEF 3 United
Nations Plaza, New York, NY 10017, US, Available
on: https://www.https://www.unicef.org/media/
files/UNICEF_Early_Moments_Matter_for_Every_
Child_report.pdf.
Cornell, J., 1991: Mit Kindern die Natur erleben. Mül-
heim an der Ruhr, Verlag an der Ruhr, 147 p.
Cornell, J., 1998: Sharing Nature With Children. Nevada
City, Dawn Publications, 216 p.
Devall, B., Sessions, G., 2007: Deep Ecology: Living as
if Nature Mattered. Layton, Utah, Gibbs Smith Pub-
lishing, 269 p.
Dieblová M., 2005: Motivace jako nástroj řízení. Praha,
Linde, 127 p.
Disman, M., 2002: Jak se vyrábí sociologická znalost.
Praha, Karolinum, 374 p.
Dumont, H., Istance, D., Benavides, F., 2010: The Nature
of Learning: Using Research to Inspire Practise.
OECD Publications.
Emmons, K. M., 1997: Perceptions of the Environment
While Exploring the Outdoors: A Case Study in Belize.
Environmental Education Research, 3:327–344.
Gavora, P., 2008: Úvod do pedagogického výskumu. Bra-
tislava, Bratislava : Univerzita Komenského, 236 p.
Guskey, T. R., Yoon, K. S., 2009: What Works in Profes-
sional Development? Phi Delta Kappan, 90:495–500.
Harkabus, Š., Marušáková, Ľ., 2007: Zásady lesní peda-
gogiky. In: Učebnice PAWS, p. 64–120.
Hendl, J., 2016: Kvalitativní výzkum: Základní teorie,
metody a aplikace. Prague, Portál, 408 p.
Hoyle, E., 2008: Changing conceptions of teaching as a
profession: Personal reflections. In: Johnson, D. &
Maclean, R. (eds.): Teaching: Professionalisation,
Development and Leadership, New York, Springer
Science + Business Media B. V., p. 285–304.
Jickling, B., 2005: Deep Ecology and Education: A Con-
versation with Arne Naess. In: Naess, A., Dreng-
son, A. (eds.): The Selected Works of Arne Naess.
Springer, Dordrecht, 1048.
Kuhlemann, G., Brühlmeier, A., 2002: Johann Heinrich
Pestalozzi. Schneider-Verlag., 304 p.
Lai, K. C, Mok, A., Ko, K. W., Li., C., 2001: Issues in
Teacher Supply and Retention in England and their
Implications for Hong Kong. Teacher Education
Planning Digest, 6:1–35.
Liu, E., Kardos, S. M., Kauffman, D., Peske, H. G., John-
son, S. M., 2000: Barely Breaking Even: Incentives,
Rewards, and the High Costs of Choosing to Teach.
25 p.
Machar, I., 2009: Úvod do ekologie lesa a lesní peda-
gogiky pro učitele přírodopisu a environmentální
výchovy. Olomouc, University of Palacky, 104 p.
Mazáčová, N., 2001: Učitel začátečník. Avail-
able on: http://www.ceskaskola.cz/Ceskaskola/
Ar.asp?ARI=2869&CAI=2125.
Naess, A., 1989: Ecology, community and lifestyle: Out-
line of an ecosophy. Cambridge, Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 223 p.
Naess, A., 1993: How Should Supporters of the Deep
Ecology Movement Behave in Order to Affect Society
and Culture. The Trumpeter, 10:3.
Rickinson, M., 2001: Learners and Learning in Environ-
mental Education: A Critical Review of the Evidence.
Environmental Education Research, 7:307–320.
Russell, C. L., 2000: A Report on an Ontario Second-
ary School Integrated Environmental Studies Pro-
grammes. Canadian Journal of Environmental Edu-
cation, 5:287–304.
Scott, C., Stone, B., Dinham, S., 2001: I love teaching,
but... International patterns of teacher discontent.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28:1–7.
Sinclair, C., 2008: How can what we know about moti-
vation to teach improve the quality of initial teacher
education and practicum? In: Towndrow, P. A., Koh,
C., Soon, T. H. (eds.): Motivation and practice for the
classroom, Rotterdam, Sense, p. 37–61.
Sivek, D. J., 2002: Environmental Sensitivity among
Wisconsin High School Students. Environmental
Education Research, 8:155–170.
Skibins, J. C., Powell, R. B., Stern, M. J., 2012: Explor-
ing Empirical Support for Interpretation‘s Best Prac-
tices. Journal of Interpretation Research, 17:25–44.
Slaughter, R., 1974: Futures in education. Futures,
p. 341–342.
Slee, R., 2001: Social justice and changing directions
in educational research: the case of inclusive educa-
tion. International Journal of Inclusive Education,
p. 167–177.
Spear, M., Gould, K., Lee, B., 2000: Who Would be a Tea-
cher? A Review of Factors Motivating and Demoti-
vating Prospective and Practising Teachers. Slough,
UK, National Foundation for Educational Research,
83 p.
Stern, M. J., Powell, P., Ardoin, N., 2010: Evaluating a
Constructivist and Culturally Responsive Approach
to Environmental Education for Diverse Audiences.
Journal of Environmental Education, 42:109–122.
Stern, M. J., Powell, R. B., Ardoin, N., 2008: What Diff-
erence Does It Make? Assessing Outcomes from Par-
ticipation in Residential Environmental Education
Programmes. Journal of Environmental Education,
39:31–43.
Švaříček, R., Šeďová, K., 2007: Kvalitativní výzkum
v pedagogických vědách. Prague, Portál, 384 p.
Tilden, F., 1957: Interpreting Our Heritage. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press, 191 p.
UNESCO, 1978: Final Report Intergovernmental Con-
ference on Environmental Education, Tbilisi, USSR,
14–26 October 1977. Paris: UNESCO
Wedlichová, I., 2011: Emoční inteligence. Ústí nad
Labem, Univerzita J. E. Purkyně, 128 p.
Wengraf, T., 2001: Qualitative Research Interviewing:
Biographic Narrative and Semi-Structured Methods.
London, Sage, 424 p.
20