The human teacher’s will has traditionally dominated the pedagogical scene, a conception that would not change until well into the 20th century (Quay & Jensen, 2018). An education model based on the student –also human– was first mentioned from this moment on and is still valid today (Ketlhoilwe & Velempini, 2021; Quay & Jensen, 2018; Quay, 2021). Based on these understandings, the answer to purpose number one is essential. Although various dualisms cloud our perception of the world, we are facing the conflict between the role of the subject and object, of humans and non-humans. Once the concept of “nature as Co-teacher” was proposed (Blenkinsop & Ford, 2018a; Green & Dyment, 2018; Jickling & Blenkinsop, 2020b; Jickling & Morse, 2022; Jickling et al., 2018b; Quay & Jensen, 2018; Winks & Warwick, 2021), the solution offered by Wild Pedagogies was discovered to end the androgenic trend to objectify or personify any being, entity or “matter” found behind the pedagogical process of “teaching”. In the field of anthropomorphism, Dewey explained that the child is the experimenter, “who” experiences education as the “subject”, while knowledge and curricular skills are the “what” [is learned or taught] as the “object” of that “subject” (Dewey, 1913, cited in Quay, 2021).

In view of our mission, the problem is that non-humans or, if preferred, more-than-humans, are objectified by education policy and practices in the curriculum (Matsagopane, 2024). It is even said that objects –mistakenly considered as natural– are introduced in the classroom as part of –and in part because of– Environmental Education in a dangerously reductionist way. This could be justified with the term referred to by Quay (2021) as “anthropomorphic reasoning” (p. 10). Conveying that the task of rethinking the role of all agents involved in the teaching-learning process will be in vain unless we endeavour to simultaneously and interconnectedly develop new ways of thinking Environmental Education Theory (Blenkinsop & Ford, 2018b); then will the relational, the critical and the existential dimension become forces that challenge and foster the revolution we so need. A change that will start to take shape when: (i) the human teacher actively takes a step back (Willis et al., 2024); and (ii) allows more-than-human beings to communicate with them and with the students. Something that, in the words of philosopher Nӕss (1989), would be an invitation to open up our “ecological self”.

Due to the line that marked the character of this point, we can confirm that when Wild Pedagogies conceives nature as a Co-teacher, what it is trying to say is that it takes centre stage in the teaching-learning process, leading not only to a decentralisation of roles and duties for the human teacher and students, but also abruptly introducing an ecocentric perspective (Jickling & Blenkinsop, 2020b; Jickling et al., 2018b; Kuchta, 2022; Nerland & Aadland, 2022; Quay, 2021). From this viewpoint, students need the help of a guide (the human teacher) to imagine and pseudo-experience new ways of being in the natural world (with the more-than-human teacher), without forgetting that it is the human teacher who implements their own activism as an example of their Wild Pedagogy (Jickling et al., 2018b; Kuchta, 2022). These ideas will inevitably raise issues such as the question posed by Quay (2021) in relation to renegotiating roles: “How can decentering of humans occur in education, without at the same time denying humans?” (p. 8).

Ecological concerns raised by posthumanism and new materialisms are complex, affecting present and future generations. Likewise, the practical and ethical implications of Wild Pedagogies in childhood and even having already proven its effectiveness with this name at university levels (Krigstin et al., 2023) are in line with reflecting the post-human shift (Jickling et al., 2018b; Maistry et al., 2023; Paulsen et al., 2022; Pierce & Telford, 2023). Highlighting some critical points in the proposals by Paulsen et al. (2022) can respond to the second purpose of this analysis:

Within this post-humanist approach, scientific and environmental educators have adopted the concerns of Donna Haraway, among others, about when species meet or what happens with companion species (Jickling & Blenkinsop, 2020a; Morse et al., 2021b; Paulsen et al., 2022).

In their conceptions of education, they incorporate agential realism ideas from the philosophy of Karen Barad and her diffractive methodology (Paulsen et al., 2022). A connection that becomes evident in the way Wild Pedagogies constantly allude to restructuring the image of nature as Co-teacher so as to create different relationships between us, and a world that is not independent of our experience (Smit & Veerbeek, 2023), such that Wild Pedagogies identifies with other ecocentric pedagogies like Friluftsliv⁵. While the environment is at the core of Friluftsliv pedagogy, it is striking that this pedagogy has recently been recognised as if it were part of Wild Pedagogies, or vice versa, that Wild Pedagogies is an integral part of Friluftsliv pedagogies. In fact, Friluftsliv has stated the following: “we believe we share this ecocentric perspective with Wild Pedagogies, among others through the ‘nature as a Co-teacher’ touchstone” (Nerland & Aadland, 2022, p. 121).

The influence of new materialism rhetoric about material aspects of the world is evident in literature on Wild Pedagogies, as we indirectly anticipated earlier. A Wild Pedagogies approach to poetic narrative also known as “prosopopoeia” (Quay, 2021); the human form of giving voice to the more-than-human; without forgetting that, even though we will never be able to convert, speak or think for the natural other, we can and must learn to speak and think about the problems we cause to all the living systems around us.

New “neoqualitative” educational research methods are emerging (Paulsen et al., 2022, p. 154) in the place of traditional “post-qualitative methods”. An important nuance attributed to Paulsen et al. (2022), who also mention that this phenomenological human experience is overdetermined by our intersystematicity with the more-than-human other. Our review can confirm that Wild Pedagogies seek a kind of “wilding of research” (Jickling & Morse, 2022, p. 32). With no evidence to contrast these forms of “neoqualitative” research, as well as the absence of a clear differentiation between the possible methods to which the concept refers and based on our review, we suggest that Lyrical Philosophy, Pinhole Photography and the delight of Poetry or Poetic Narrative, due to their divergence, be the reflection of the “neo” research methods they promote.

It is possible to attribute some affective theories of new materialism to Karin Hultman, Hillevi Lenz Taguchi and Simon Ceder since they have also influenced their narrative (Beeman, 2021; Jickling & Blenkinsop, 2020a, 2020b; Morse et al., 2021b; Paulsen et al., 2022). Likewise, various authors indirectly reinforce these ideas, linking them with childhood and the background of what is known in Wild Pedagogies as Aesthetic Learning Processes (ALP and/or ALPs) (Paulsen et al., 2022; Hughes, 2023). And taking as an example the concept of mimesis developed by Danish existential phenomenologist Mogens Pahuus (1988, cited in Paulsen et al., 2022), we highlight the way in which Edlev (2009, cited in Paulsen et al., 2022) refers to the imperfect imitation of material and sensitive things for the child’s environmental education.

This is therefore a complex project that invites us to an exercise of introspection towards the unknown, towards other states of Pedagogy with the natural world. This innovation refers to a specific level of alteration, i.e., to a “disruptive innovation” (Aikens, 2021; Ketlhoilwe & Velempini, 2021). Agential disorders that challenge our Western pedagogical thoughts. What’s more, some who follow Foucauldian themes have already tried to cite Wild Pedagogies to refer to somatic multiplicities and the neurobiologised educational subject (Reveley, 2024).

In 1997, American philosopher Edward S Cassey proposed that place is an immediate environment surrounding the body, which must in no way be confused with space. Thus, he reaffirmed that places are carriers of memories, narratives and emotions, which in some way warns that these places can greatly affect the psychological well-being of the Homo genus (Green & Dyment, 2018; Petersen, 2021). Some have also recently postulated that the environment is made up of two essential elements: natural, more-than-human places and built spaces, both urban and rural (Morse et al., 2021b). Quotes that are very close to the approaches that point towards the possibility of building an updated, “wild” Pedagogy among –and not only on– the natural space.

A clear example of these pedagogical adaptations to the place-world relationship is proposed by David Greenwood, promoter of place-based education, whose words are added to this analysis to shed truth on our presentation. “The placial and bodily aspects of memory invite a phenomenological description of ’embodied implacement’, and phenomenology becomes an exploration of the body in built and wild places. Human experience, then, is the ongoing journey between places” (Cruz-Pieere & Landes, 2013, cited in Petersen, 2021, p. 50). In line with this particular aspect, Wild Pedagogies literature forges work where the place as an entity occupies a distinctive and even, one might say, central value. For this reason, many ideas by Cassey or Greenwood can be found between the lines (Aikens, 2021; Blenkinsop & Ford, 2018b; Green, 2022; Jickling & Blenkinsop, 2020a, 2020b; Jickling et al., 2018b; Jickling, 2015; Morse et al., 2018a, 2021b; Paulsen et al., 2022; Petersen, 2021).

In response to objective three, the epistemic hypothesis assumed by Wild Pedagogies about place and worlds shown as ecosystems makes its conception of the teaching-learning process somewhat more than purely experiential (Jickling et al., 2023b). This is where an important feature is reflected that separates this approach from others that are apparently similar, without denying how they may have been influenced by other alternative movements. In fact, the idea to be conveyed is that Wild Pedagogies present theses that challenge what to date has been an exclusive argument of community-based education, place-based education, ecological identity, Outdoor Education, Environmental Education and even Experiential Education. In this regard, and while still proposing something new and fascinating, it reminds us of familiar methodologies and approaches (Henderson, 2018; Winks, 2020). Something like: “The juncture between the old and the new – an intergenerational call to attentiveness, connection and action. A blending of philosophies, but a more urgent and decisive call” (Winks, 2020, p. 1). Its name evidently encompasses different renewed pedagogical formulas and it has a certain degree of common ground with other predecessor movements (Morse et al., 2021b). Some of them, which first emerged in the 1990s, suggested the importance of connecting education with the natural place, as maintained today by Wild Pedagogies.

However, to ascertain the difference brought by the nuance of the wild in this case, we must begin by travelling between these places “with a critical eye” (Jickling et al., 2018b, p. 43). Wild Pedagogies thus acknowledges that, despite not being what we might anticipate, wild places are present near our homes, in urban areas and even industrial areas (Hempsall, 2022; Jickling & Blekinsop, 2020a, 2020b; Jørgensen-Vittersø et al., 2022; Morse et al., 2018a, 2018b, 2021b; Paulsen et al., 2022). A statement that has been corroborated in multiple papers; among their most notable characteristics we find that they are neither distant (Morse et al., 2021b), uninhabited and/or deserted (Jickling et al., 2018b), nor are they intact/virgin or out of our reach (Richey, 2022). In fact, authors such as Morse et al. (2021b) suggest that, regardless of their form, they are all among us at all times. Based on such considerations, we can extrapolate to the case of places in ruins, recently recognised by Schmidt (2022) as a “type” of wild place. This last contribution proves how Wild Pedagogies embraces the beauty of wild nature in a realistic way, moving away from the stereotypical profile given to the aesthetics of the environment in the Anthropocene era (Petz, 2022).

This leads us to the underlying argument that traditional education prefers safe places, those that prioritise predictability even when this means limiting students’ pedagogical exploration. Something that often idealises and distorts learning processes as it aims to exclude wild places –more-than-human places– from education simply because they are wrongly associated with dangerous places (Beeman, 2021; Jickling & Blenkinsop, 2020a; Jickling et al., 2018b; Medeiros, 2022; Morse et al., 2021a).

In truth, pedagogical activity and nature are codependent (Nerland & Aadland, 2022). When analysed together or even separately, Pedagogy and nature are two complex realities (Green & Dyment, 2018), so much so that we seldom consider all possible manifestations of nature. Paulsen et al. (2022), point out that nature exists in its material form –that we inhabit– and in its ideal form –that inhabits our thoughts–, and that both deserve exploration. So, the following was assessed: if we are going to take a step towards wild learning in nature, where other more-than-humans have a place in our conversations, then where and how we have them is extremely important (Jickling et al., 2018b; Morse et al., 2018a, 2018b). Before progressing, it is vital to reflect on some ideas chosen as “key” to respond to purpose four. Firstly, everything flourishes happily and wildly in more-than-human places and worlds where “wild education” and “wild learning” can be set up as processes of natural growth and maturing. From then:

At the dawn of the 21st century, the environmental crisis follows guidelines and formulas that point to a lack of communication with the ecosystem. This lack of conversation between us and the more-than-human world highlights a deficit of ontological appreciation. Something that is historic, as it is a consequence we have been dragging since the rationalist discourse of science came to Europe in the 17th century, proposing our separation from the natural environment (Medeiros, 2022). To sum up, here we must add that the effects of individualistic or individual-centred ontology substantially intensify the severity with which these phenomena are expressed which, with prejudice, prevent or hinder processes of expansion and reconnection with nature. Of all the examples reviewed, only one, Beeman (2021), mentions the term coined by Robert Greenway to refer to these possible obstacles as “psychological barriers/limits” (p. 333). But delving deeper into this need to reconnect with nature and responding to research purpose five, we can see that Wild Pedagogies attempt to justify their objective of the idea of renaturalising teaching-learning processes according to other, more challenging structures: “The goal of wild pedagogy is ‘re-wilding’ education” (Jickling et al., 2018b, p. x).

In line with these findings, the philosophical tradition of the concept of “re-wilding” was also found to be respected within the parameters of Deep Ecology (Beavington et al., 2022; Blekinsop & Ford, 2018b; Hempsall, 2022; Henderson, 2018; Jickling & Blekinsop, 2020a, 2020b; Jickling et al., 2018a, 2018b; Jørgensen-Vittersø et al., 2022; MacEachren, 2022; Morse et al., 2021b; Nerland & Aadland, 2022; Paulsen et al., 2022; Quay & Jensen, 2018; Richey, 2022; Winks & Warwick, 2021). A type of education that invites us to an interstitial dialogue between species and ecosystems. Other authors, such as Jickling and Blekinsop (2020b), suggest that this type of learning is developed around three major cores: (1) affiliation; (2) being with more-than-human worlds; and, (3) deep listening. A purpose of re-wilding nature that hides the need to learn to be different people, to return to nature, to cohabit in harmony and in society with other living networks (Jickling et al., 2018b).

Contemporary education, the school of today, ensures their survival by limiting themselves to assessing and controlling human subjects, their systems, structures and even routines (Aikens, 2021; Winks & Warwick, 2021). However, as noted in other sections, this idea of control is camouflaged by a dangerous notion of “safety” linked, according to Wild Pedagogies, to the idea of “domesticating” (Jickling & Blenkinsop, 2020a; Lama, 2022; Morse et al., 2021a; Winks & Warwick, 2021). So thinking, like Morse et al. (2021a), that everything contributes to a delineation of forms of being is extremely convenient given the political-ideological consistency that characterises –and sometimes in a self-absorbed way– unfortunate decision-making during the Anthropocene era. Only an education policy that is unbridled or self-willed would therefore be capable of questioning the meaning and purpose we have given to education on planet Earth (Winks & Warwick, 2021); only a policy that is sufficiently brave would be capable of questioning every predominant ideal, value and vision to thus deviate from the path set (Paulsen et al., 2022); only a theory like Wild Pedagogies, some say, can make this ideal policy wildly ecological without losing pedagogical control or, if preferred, adapting as a catalyst for the different ways of educating in contact with nature (Jickling et al., 2018b). To such an extent we could agree that some authors already propose Scotland as a reference for imagining what would be a political model that is tolerant with the type of wild education it aims to build (Winks & Warwick, 2021).

To justify the need for a wild policy change it is evident that this one-on-one with the more-than-human other will identify the need to structure our own “implicit policies” (Jørgensen-Vittersø et al., 2022) because it is well known that knowledge of the world is expressed differently when learning from nature as a Co-teacher. Understanding this means adopting a critical stance as Wild Pedagogies maintains that, if education action is contaminated by exclusively human interests, we cannot expect our notion of “assessment” to be applicable to the learning offered by the natural world. Beyond this evidence, the following questions can and should arise: “can wilding educational policy create an educational situation where students’ learning and wild places flourish together?” (Ketlhoilwe & Velempini, 2021, p. 359). The proposal thus consists in making learning in wild places possible (Green & Dyment, 2018) without forgetting that wilding educational policy has the capacity to: (i) improve the provision of wild pedagogies while supporting the creation of a curriculum aimed at educational practice in the natural environment (Ketlhoilwe & Velempini, 2021) and, (ii) address the variety of wild experiences as a student right (Ketlhoilwe & Velempini, 2021) given that it offers a positive response to inherent tensions between the school –formal education institution– and nature –“the wild”–, proposing a substantial improvement in their relationship (Aikens, 2021).

Wild Pedagogies was based on a total of six cornerstones until 2022, but two more were added in 2023: (#7) Learning to Love, Care and Be Compassionate and (#8) Expanding the Imagination (Jickling et al., 2023a). In stone seven, Learning to Love, Care and Be Compassionate, references to Rachel Carson and her monumental work Silent Spring are an important axis for reflecting on affectivity and empathy in the reciprocal care between humans and nature. While stone eight, Expanding the Imagination, calls for public education and the challenge of expanding anthropocentric imagination that limits itself. But the document cited does not arise precisely from the systematisation of the previous literature search, it is a reference added by the authors and following a conversation with Bob Jickling, Professor Emeritus at Lakehead University (Canada), one of the most well-known representatives of this literary body. From this recent thematic update, we know that, at least to date, this brave voice is still latent⁶.