Teacher-intuition

It is a clear, bright, and sunny day and twenty-five grade two students are quietly listening to the world and seeking out “interesting questions” as the teacher has requested. Amidst the buzz of excitement, one student screams out, “Why is the sky blue?” The teacher, somewhat harried and lacking the time to really respond, relies on their well-developed teacher-intuition— an intuition informed by their experience, professional training, and culture. The teacher responds habitually, and efficiently with a scientific answer about the scattered distribution of light. The answer appears to satisfy, and the teacher turns to the next excited query and offers another answer.

Second anecdote. Author One remembers sitting in a lecture hall when she first heard intuition described in an educational context. Here, intuition was articulated by the sessional instructor, a former principal and esteemed member of the faculty, in this way: When you are an experienced teacher there will come a time when you won’t even need to think. Instead, you’ll just function from your intuition, and you’ll be quick, making the day-to-day mundane of being a teacher easier. The impression was that intuition was a kind of skill— rationally developed and a benchmark for new teachers to reach.

These anecdotes pique our curiosity. They suggest certain conceptions of intuition within education that differ from those presented in other venues (e.g. interspecies communication and research). As scholars with interests in ecological education, we wonder why these differences exist— and what happens to our relationships with the more-than-human world when it is encountered and understood through the ways and assumptions of teacher-intuition.

Intuition in education

Here we offer a quick review of the dominant form that intuition takes in education. This is not a comprehensive review but rather touches on the important conversations about intuition in education that informs our understanding of teacher-intuition.

In the educational literature intuition is understood as being developed over time and thus derived from a growing expertise (Sadler-Smith, Reference Sadler-Smith2008; Waks, Reference Waks2006). Sadler-Smith (Reference Sadler-Smith2008) describes intuition as “based in prior learning experiences” (p. 31). Similarly, Waks (Reference Waks2006) explains intuition as originating from “memory” (p. 384). This conception of intuition as based in expertise is commonly associated with leadership (Claxton, Reference Claxton and Henry2006; Sadler-Smith, Reference Sadler-Smith2008; Waks, Reference Waks2006), and decision-making (Sinclair & Ashkanasy, Reference Sinclair and Ashkanasy2005), especially in management and business education (Sadler-Smith & Burke, Reference Sadler-Smith and Burke2009; Sinclair & Ashkanasy, Reference Sinclair and Ashkanasy2005). Comparatively, Garipova (Reference Garipova2018) considers intuition as important for “teacher cognitivity” and the development of competencies such as leadership (Garipova, Reference Garipova2018, p. 926). Leaders draw upon their intuition, developed over time, to make quick, effective decisions; thus, intuition is an important skill for those in leadership roles to develop (Sadler-Smith, Reference Sadler-Smith2008).

In a qualitative study, seventeen primary school teachers were interviewed about decision-making. Researchers Vanlommel and colleagues (Reference Vanlommel, Van Gasse, Vanhoof and Van Petegem2017) concluded, “that teachers’ decision-making processes are affected by intuitive expertise and feelings of knowing to a great extent. Teachers hardly use data that are collected deliberately and systematically to inform decision making” (p. 82). It can be said, then, that teachers rely on their storehouse of historical experience to inform even their immediate decisions — decisions made quickly, in the moment, without apparent acts of deliberation but supported by extensive experience, which are considered intuitive.

To explore the role of intentionality and intuition in facilitation, Thomas (Reference Thomas2008) conducted interviews and observations with seven educator facilitators. In this study, intuition is described as “the circumstances when an experienced facilitator is not able to articulate a clear rational for their actions, yet they are still able to facilitate effectively” (p. 5). The findings indicate intuition as both important, and crucial for facilitation (Thomas, Reference Thomas2008). To develop intuition, Thomas (Reference Thomas2008) recommends the following, “experience through reflective practice, observe experienced facilitators in action, and find suitable mentors who can help” (p. 18). There is an emphasis on intuition as forming from, and as an ongoing refinement of, one’s expertise, in order to facilitate effectively and efficiently.

We turn to Sadowski (Reference Sadowski2017), who gives a comprehensive overview of intuition in education, including a critique concerning intuition as forming from expertise:

A rationally explainable intuition based on expertise may miss the presence of another form of intuition (Sadowski, Reference Sadowski2017). The form that expresses itself in the context of the present moment can be overlooked if all the emphasis is placed on past experiences and rational grounding. Sadowski (Reference Sadowski2017) notes an additional challenge; “limiting the explanation for intuition to a cognitive, rational framework leaves a range of common intuitive experiences unaccounted for” (Sadowski, Reference Sadowski2017, p. 78). Reducing intuition to what is rationally explainable restricts the breadth and depth of intuitive experiences and diverse understandings.

Interviews with teachers confirmed the importance of intuition in situations that require pedagogical tact — the ability to deal with complex classroom situations requiring immediate attention (Sipman et al., Reference Sipman, Thölke, Martens and McKenney2019, p. 1186; Sipman et al., Reference Sipman, Martens, Thölke and McKenney2021). Interestingly, the educational practitioners expressed concern, noting the extent to which “rational processes overshadow intuitive ones in unproductive ways” (p.1199). Noddings and Shore (Reference Noddings and Shore1984) indicate that rational biases can, indeed, discredit, or limit a range of intuitive experience all together. In a different study, Valle (Reference Valle2017) explored teacher’s intuitive interactions in a classroom context. Valle’s (Reference Valle2017) understanding of intuitive action is based in the Western philosophical tradition; “intuitive actions are seen as an insight, an ability to realise what is happening, what would be the wise course of action, or which means, in a given situation, will lead to the best result” (Valle, Reference Valle2017, p. 246).

Sadowski (Reference Sadowski2017) raises an additional important critique that is relevant to conceptions of intuition, and teacher-intuition:

This critique from Sadowski (Reference Sadowski2017) has us wondering if what we have encountered as teacher-intuition could be limiting the potential range of intuition or even indicative of something other than intuition all together.

Sadowski (Reference Sadowski2017) observed that “academic writers traditionally either ignore intuition altogether or else appeal to an explanation of it that emphasises its rational, expert aspects” (p. 35). The scope of intuition becomes limited if adhering only to its deemed rational qualities. For an expanded conception of intuition, turning to other knowledge systems than those of the Western purview is an avenue for exploration (Sadowski, Reference Sadowski2017). Barrett and Wuetherick (Reference Barrett and Wuetherick2012) report on data that was gathered from students who were part of a graduate course, which explored the connections between students’ personal knowing and Indigenous ways of knowing in environmental decsion making. In this course, intuition was used as a key bridging concept to faciliate greater considerationa and understanding of diverse ways of knowing. Other ways of knowing can also help undo the ‘intuition as individual possession’ assumptions that undergird the teacher-intuition form, allowing us to think differently about the self. Perhaps even opening space, as Sadowski (Reference Sadowski2017) suggests, to consider the intuitor as being “contextual, inter-subjective, and always in relationship” (p. 124). Burns (Reference Burns2024), for example, follows this thread in their work related to the role of intuition in transformative eco-spiritual learning (p. 119–125).

In summary, the educational literature on intuition predominantly focuses on a form of intuition rooted in experience, built up over time, and grounded in expertise. The teacher-intuition form also appears to be rationally explained, even though it is often employed in complex situations where decisions must be made quickly. Furthermore, teacher-intuition is clearly a possession of the individual teacher. In the next section, we turn to the ontological and epistemological assumptions that might undergird the form of teacher-intuition. The anecdotes are reflected back upon to illustrate these assumptions.

Ontological

There are ontological and epistemological assumptions and implications that underly both anecdotes and the forms of intuition as we understand them. These onto-epistemological assumptions may pose problems and/or possibilities for the more-than-human. We will begin by addressing the ontological. First, in the anecdotes, there is the giving of a perceived right answer. This intuitive response — to give the oneright answer, as though there is a right answer — rests on a series of ontological assumptions that notably prioritise the individual human and alienate humans from other beings. These assumptions tend to underpin public education in Canada. How might these assumptions be upheld? Battiste (Reference Battiste, Tripp and Muzzin2005) describes that humans are “marinated” in a Eurocentric consciousness (p. 124) with teachers too “marinated” in a modernist education system (Jickling et al., Reference Jickling, Blenkinsop, Sitka-Sage and Timmerman2018, p. 33). This time spent being educated and then educating others through immersion in modern western schooling shapes one’s teacher ontology — the way of being teacher (see Kincheloe’s (Reference Kincheloe, Hayes, Steinberg and Tobin2011) “critical ontology” and its relationship to being teacher). We are left wondering to what extent intuition is formed and continually shaped by education and cultural framings, and what the subsequent effects might be.

The individuality of teacher-intuition is apparent. Being teacher through teacher-intuition — where there is an individualistic emphasis — may abstract the self from the world, resulting in a sense of disconnect. Intriguingly — and we explore this below — relational-intuition involves a presentness and a willingness to listen to the world as it communicates, in whatever way, directly with you. This strand is in contrast to the the rationalistic, “know where this comes from,” built-over-time concepts that undergird teacher-intuition. Without an eco-orientation, there may be be a lack of reflexivity about how one’s way of being teacher affects the more-than-human. For example, the more-than-human blue-sky in the anecdote is spoken about and to — but not with, through, or listened to (Blenkinsop & Piersol, Reference Blenkinsop and Piersol2013; Jickling et al., Reference Jickling, Blenkinsop, Sitka-Sage and Timmerman2018). Speaking “about” and “to” tends to axiologically position the more-than-human as lesser-than human. This alienation of the more-than-human for their supposed “limited” communicative abilities is a colonial manoeuvre that works to the advantage of certain humans (Blenkinsop et al., Reference Blenkinsop, Affifi, Piersol and De Danann Sitka-Sage2016). Evernden (Reference Evernden.1993) echoes this when he speaks of symbolically severing “the larynx of the biosphere” (p. 17). What he means by this is that cutting the vocal cords of the more-than-human it eases the burden of our use and exploitation.

In addition to ecological implications, teacher-intuition can have worrying issues related to inclusion, diversity, and social justice. For instance, intuition in this form, at times, is more like habituation. A habit that has become an intuited response over the tenure of a teacher’s career may have blind spots, systemic racisms, and western epistemological assumptions that would make those intuitive responses different to those developed by a teacher today. Without critical reflexivity, it can be difficult to notice implications for both more-than-human and human.

Epistemological

Ontology asks what it means to be, whereas epistemology asks how we can know, what knowledge is, and the how meaning is created. For a relational-intuition to flourish, there is a need to renegotiate the ontology of being teacher, as well as to reconsider how knowledge is understood and how meaning is made differently. By expanding the space to “do” teacher-intuition differently — such as by supporting a relational form — both the being of teacher and the assumptions of what knowledge is, and where it might be located, must change. The above anecdote of teacher-intuition reveals epistemological assumptions about how knowledge works, where knowledge is located, and how meaning is made. It assumes that knowledge is a possession of someone — usually an adult human expert — and that it is fragmented, transferable, complete in its presentation, and independent of context.

With these illustrations of teacher-intuition there is the assumption that knowledge is fixed; there is one right answer to the question that is independent of context (Snowberry & Blenkinsop, Reference Snowberry and Blenkinsop2010). The answer is transferable from any context to another. There is also the assumption that the teacher is the expert and the one who provides the answer (Blenkinsop & Ford, Reference Blenkinsop and Ford2018). This assumed rationally explainable answer to “Why is the sky blue?” is intrinsically closed off to both the world and the student (see Snowberry & Blenkinsop, (Reference Snowberry and Blenkinsop2010) for another example ). Regardless of where, when, or by whom the question is asked, the answer is the same for any given place or time. With knowledge as fixed within the habit-formed intuition, it prevents other ways of coming to know that are sensorial, relational, embodied, incomplete, and impermanent (Blenkinsop & Ford, Reference Blenkinsop and Ford2018). The easy offering of teacher-intuition might suppress the potential to discover that knowledge is more shared, interconnected, and incomplete than previously assumed.

There is also an assumption that the knowledge providing the answer is locatable. For example, located in science textbooks, and reached through objectivity, experiments, and equations (Snowberry & Blenkinsop, Reference Snowberry and Blenkinsop2010). The modern western education system supports this way of knowing. Knowledge is further understood as fragmented, with the distribution of light providing the only answer to why the sky is blue. Instead of consulting only human sources, perhaps we might turn to the wind, the clouds, and winged critters — those who may have a different sense as to why the sky is blue. In doing so, we create space for the more-than-human as co-teachers to enter the conversation (Blenkinsop & Beeman, Reference Blenkinsop and Beeman2010; Ford & Blenkinsop, Reference Ford and Blenkinsop2018; Jickling et al., Reference Jickling, Blenkinsop, Sitka-Sage and Timmerman2018; Quay, Reference Quay2013; Styres, Reference Styres2011). Alternatively, the question could be returned back to the student (Snowberry & Blenkinsop, Reference Snowberry and Blenkinsop2010) to probe their own intuitive sense-making as to why, how, when, and from whom they understand the sky as blue.

It is our suspicion that this predominant form of teacher-intuition is culturally framed and supported, while being implicitly restrictive. The problematics with teacher-intuition are not the fault of the teacher, but perhaps reflective of a modernist system of power. It is a kind of culturally allowable, or controlled, intuition, as it were. The dominant paradigms of the modern western world fundamentally doubt the function — even the existence— of a more fluid, relational, immediate, and unexplainable intuition (Sadowski, Reference Sadowski2017). Historially, listening to other forms of intuition has been considred an unreliable and delegitimised way of knowing (Sadowski, Reference Sadowski2017). Furthermore, these forms of intuition have often been seen as the purview of women and in a misogynist society, consequently devalued (Sadowski, Reference Sadowski2017). It is anticipated that the accepted form of teacher-intuition has been framed to make sense and fit comfortably within these dominant paradigms, driven by reason, explainability, clear causation, and individual experience. To renegotiate teacher-intuition in a more ecological direction asks teachers to carry themselves differently in the world, and that all those involved in education, work to challenge the dominant versions of education that shape how we are expected to be (Jickling et al., Reference Jickling, Blenkinsop, Sitka-Sage and Timmerman2018).

Wild Pedagogies take seriously the need to renegotiate relationships with the more-than-human world (Morse et al., Reference Morse, Jickling and Quay2018). Education has an important role in this relationship building (Jickling et al., Reference Jickling, Blenkinsop, Sitka-Sage and Timmerman2018). For this reason, exploring the potential unecological implications of this form of teacher-intuition and then proposing relational-intuition as one way to be teacher differently is important to the project of Wild Pedagogies. For education to operate in ecological ways it would help to shift from an ontology of separation and individualisation to relationality with world, more-than-human, and humans. There is a need to challenge ingrained beliefs, and problematic epistemological assumptions that have been imprinted through schooling, socialisation, and acculturation. We see relational-intuition as offering options for being teacher and helping in this Wild Pedagogies work of relationship building.

This leads us to wonderings: If we are to reframe intuition — drawing on the work of scholars who engage with different understandings of it — and create space for intuition in education, could this allow education and educators to be differently? Might knowing and understanding change? Could this open space for a more relational and ecologically rich schooling — one that is more just, more inclusive of humanity’s diversity and the more-than-human, and more directly interested in the project of “mutual flourishing” (Kimmerer, Reference Kimmerer2013) ? This relational-intuition might be pivotal to supporting the aims of Wild Pedagogies.

Relational-intuition

In this section, we articulate another form: relational-intuition. A more expansive, less-sanctioned form that leans in ontological, epistemological, and ecological directions that are different to what we have encountered as teacher-intuition. Our wondering is whether teacher-intuition might benefit from partnering with or leaving space for relational-intuition in order for education to head in different and hopefully more ecologizing directions.

Vignette 1: River

To describe our thinking about relational-intuition, we offer two research vignettes. The first was experienced by Author One with a student we call, River. Our use of vignettes help to hold the experiences and perceptions of participants (Agostini et al., Reference Agostini, Eloff and Schratz2023, Reference Agostini, Peterlini and Feldges2024). The vignettes reveal hidden meanings and intriguing facets of the lived experience (Agostini et al., Reference Agostini, Eloff and Schratz2023, Reference Agostini, Peterlini and Feldges2024). Hermeneutic methodology informs the interpretation of these experiences, and our giving life to them through written accounts (Moules et al., Reference Moules, McCaffrey, Field and Laing2015). We describe each vignette,— our admittedly incomplete interpretation of meaning — and the insights for relational-intuition, including the ontological and epistemological differences.

For context, Author One, River, and another student, Reed, were walking on a path back to the circle spot to finish the day. Reed was sharing the languages he spoke and mentioned that he would like to learn Tree. This prompted, River, to disclose that she speaks with trees.

Reflecting on this experience, there is something evidently happening between River and Tree. Our curiosity was further piqued when exploring Intuitive Interspecies Communication research (IIC) (Barrett et al., Reference Barrett, Hinz, Wijngaarden, Lovrod, Hovorka, McCubbin and Van Patter2021; Wijngaarden, Reference Wijngaarden2023; Kuppenbender, Reference Kuppenbender2024; see also Erickson et al., Reference Erickson2014, Reference Erickson2016; Hafen, Reference Hafen and Plec2013; Kulick, Reference Kulick2021). This form of intuitive communication is described by Barrett et al. (Reference Barrett, Hinz, Wijngaarden, Lovrod, Hovorka, McCubbin and Van Patter2021) as,

IIC has been studied as a multispecies method for, in Wijngaarden’s (Reference Wijngaarden2023) words, “doing research with rather than on animals” (p. 2). For example, Wijngaarden (Reference Wijngaarden2023) interviewed wild and domesticated felines through experienced Animal Communicators (AC) who used IIC to exchange information with the animals. ACs are individuals who are experienced in IIC and draw on their developed intuitive abilities to engage in two-way communication with animals (Barrett et al., Reference Barrett, Hinz, Wijngaarden, Lovrod, Hovorka, McCubbin and Van Patter2021; Wijngaarden, Reference Wijngaarden2023). Most of the IIC research to date has been with animals but there are growing accounts of IIC with plants as well. Notably, a recent dissertation from Kuchta (Reference Kuchta2024) presents IIC field work with trees.

Returning to the vignette, we wonder whether Author One had witnessed a moment of IIC happening unprovoked by a teacher, but intentionally between River and Tree. Through IIC we can rethink interactions between children and more-than-humans, like that experienced by River. Considering IIC further helps us to explore a different framing of intuition that aligns with the more-than-human relationship building priorities of environmental education and Wild Pedagogies.

IIC informs our thinking about a different form of intuition in education for several reasons. First, individuals who experience or practice IIC like ACs draw on their intuitive abilities for engaging in a relational exchange of communication with more-than-humans (Barrett et al., Reference Barrett, Hinz, Wijngaarden, Lovrod, Hovorka, McCubbin and Van Patter2021). Compared to the meanings associated with teacher-intuition (e.g. individualised leadership quality), the framing of intuition in IIC as a relational exchange of information (Barrett et al., Reference Barrett, Hinz, Wijngaarden, Lovrod, Hovorka, McCubbin and Van Patter2021) — drawing upon one’s abilities for connecting to the more-than-human— presents intuition as a more relational or connected function with the world. Despite intuition being difficult to define (Cairns-Lee, Reference Cairns-Lee and Sinclair2020), intuition presenting as a function to communicate with other beings is quite different to teacher-intuition.

Second, scholarship tells us that children may be naturally intuitive (Tillmanns, Reference Tillmanns2017). If we are to think about interspecies communication made possible through redefining and refining one’s intuition as presented in IIC — coupled with assuming children are naturally intuitive — if given the space to lean into their intuitive abilities, then is communication like that experienced between River and Tree something yet to be fully realised? Additionally, some ACs have described having the ability to communicate with animals since childhood (see Smith, Reference Smith2008, p. 2– 5; Diedrich, Reference Diedrich2005). It has use wonder whether dominant ways of being and doing — even those encouraged by teacher-intuition — cause us to miss, discredit, or ignore the relational intuitive experiences of our students.

In their description, Barrett et al. (Reference Barrett, Hinz, Wijngaarden, Lovrod, Hovorka, McCubbin and Van Patter2021) note some intuitive capacities that are drawn upon by ACs when they engage in IIC. These capacities include “visceral feelings” and “mental impressions and thoughts” (Barrett et al., Reference Barrett, Hinz, Wijngaarden, Lovrod, Hovorka, McCubbin and Van Patter2021, p. 151). Considering these capacities when examining River’s experiences makes the similarities in how the commuication was recieved more evident. River noted that she “feels” the communication and just “knows.”

In addition to IIC, there are also other scholars working with an understanding of intuition in education that is more relational. Burns (Reference Burns2024) considers nonlocality entanglement (despite space and time, phenomena are interconnected, able to influence one another) taking shape as intuition. For Burns (Reference Burns2024), connecting to intuition is, in their words, “a shift into nonlocality, and a shift away from a sense of self that is limited or separate (the ego self), to an ecological self that is profoundly energetically and physically interconnected with the earth and all life” (p.120; also see Macy, Reference Macy and Vaughn-Lee2016). Intuition is a part of the exchange and interaction of energy within an interconnected, shared world that flows through us and is readily accessible — provided there is a letting go of an individualistic and separate sense of self (Burns, Reference Burns2024).

Burns’s (Reference Burns2024) understanding of intuition as a form of entanglement, exchange of information, and an interconnected sense of self is different to that encountered in the other educational intuition literature, but comparable in some respects to the intuitive experience of IIC. Ideas of non-locality, entanglement, and intuition are not generally accepted in most schooling (Burns, Reference Burns2024), a point further echoed by Sadowski (Reference Sadowski2017).

Wanting a different framing of intuition than what is typically found in the educational literature led Sadowski (Reference Sadowski2017) to turn to spiritual or “self-help books” — despite their status as non-academic sources. These books helped Sadowski (Reference Sadowski2017) to form a different conception of intuition that aligns with transpersonal theory. This theory, in their words, “accounts for an extended range of intersubjective, and transpersonal consciousness” (p. 3). Intuition in this form is not a subjective, but rather an intersubjective experience (Sadowski, Reference Sadowski2023). Sadowski (Reference Sadowski2023) then goes on to describe the experience of intuition in this conception as “a relationship, a matter of connection and resonance” (p. 88). This understanding of intuition — as an intersubjective experience, mode of consciousness, relationship, communication, and a connection across species and between individuals that allows for relationality — is vastly different from the individualised teacher-intuition described above. The latter, with its underlying assumptions, may not only obscure this more relational and ecologically aware form of intuition, but more critically, hinder substantive change in education.

What we have shared here about relational-intuition bears some similarities to Indigenous onto-epistemologies. Castellano (Reference Castellano, Dei, Rosenberg and Hall2000), a Mohawk scholar, describes “revealed knowledge” as a source of Indigenous ways of knowing. This source, Castellano et al., (Reference Castellano, Dei, Rosenberg and Hall2000) notes, “is acquired through dreams, visions, and intuitions that are understood to be spiritual in origin” (p. 24). An additional mention of intuition is from the Secwépemc nation. Some members note that intuition has a role in their knowledge and attentiveness to the more-than-human world (Robertson, Reference Robertson2017).

Relationality with the more-than-human world is central to Indigenous epistemologies (Kimmerer, Reference Kimmerer2013). For example, in their article, Donald (Reference Donald, Seidel and Jardine2016) describes the teachings of the Cree term “wahkohtowin” as denoting a kinship relationship that asks one to expand their relational network to be inclusive of the more-than-human world. Adding to this kinship relationship, Van Horn et al., (Reference Van Horn, Kimmerer and Hausdoerffer2021) use the verb “kinning” to describe the ongoing process of “(re)connect[ing] our bodies, mind, and spirits” with/in the world (p. 3–4). A world where trees, animals and all other living beings have voices and are listened to (Deloria Jr., Reference Deloria2003).

The mentioned scholarship provides a different way to think about intuition. What could understanding and making space for intuition in a more relational, and less rationalisable form like that of IIC mean for education? How can we challenge the dominant paradigms to allow for a different sense of intuition? How might IIC already be manifesting in our education practice without us being aware? How can we encourage these intuitive experiences for nurturing multispecies relationships?

Vignette two: Raven

We provide an additional vignette from the second author’s research. This vignette first appeared in the article titled, Listening to the Literial: Orientations towards how Nature Communicates (Blenkinsop & Piersol, Reference Blenkinsop and Piersol2013).

Raven who was nine years old at the time shares her experience communicating with plants:

Ontological and epistemological differences

Raven and River’s vignettes help us to understand how ontology and epistemology might change if we take this idea of relational-intuition seriously and make space for it in education. First, consider what the experience with River in contrast with “Why is the sky blue?” reveals about the differences in being teacher. For River there is not an easy habit-formed answer to the question that aligns with the dominant paradigm. There is a shift away from finding the resolution or right answers. Instead, we see an open-endedness to what is being experienced. The teacher is asking questions, engaging with, and honouring the student’s experience. Questions are framed to explore what River and Raven are feeling, sensing, and intuiting from other beings, allowing for opportunities to lean in and build relationships in ways that differ from the status quo. According to Orr (Reference Orr1994), “we experience nature mostly as sights, sounds, smells, touch and tastes — as a medley of sensations that play upon us in complex ways. But we do not organise education in the same way we sense the world” (p. 94). River and Raven are exemplars of experiencing the world, as described by Orr (Reference Orr1994), and they also point to the potentials — such as relationality— when given the opportunity to do so. See McClarty (Reference McClarty2024) as an example of immersive and embodied learning with the more-than-human.

In Raven’s vignette she shares her experience of the world. Her way of being can be described as deeply relational and inextricably intertwined (Blenkinsop & Piersol, Reference Blenkinsop and Piersol2013). This is a different way of being — one that is given space to exist — compared to the individualism associated and following the teacher-intuition form. Instead, for Raven, there is an openness to the more-than-human world that includes different languages, and ways of communicating across species lines. We see Raven express how she experiences communication and what it looks like to live into this embodied sense of relationality with the world. As with with River, the teacher honours the somatic and sensorial way that Raven encounters the world, which in turn shapes her coming to know it.

In fact, in both vignettes, it appears difficult for both River and Raven to put into words what they are experiencing. An explanation might be that it is natural for them to be in communication with the more-than-human world (Blenkinsop & Piersol, Reference Blenkinsop and Piersol2013). For these students, there is perhaps no alternative to this relational way of being. An alternative ontology — such as one of separation — is a learned orientation, one that they are schooled into. Reflexivity in how one is being teacher in the world becomes important when considering ontologies. Giving space to a relational-intuition — catching and slowing one’s inclination to lead through “teacher-intuition” — creates space for students like River and Raven to engage in their intuitive sense-making, and live out their relationality.

These vignettes push back on hierarchies and dichotomies that surround who knows, how we know, and who gets to know. First, there is an honouring of the body, and coming to know in diverse sensorial and extra sensorial ways. Further, there is an acknowledging of River and Raven’s knowing, and the knowing of more-than-human beings. The more-than-human world is considered agentic, a knowledge keeper, and capable ofcommunicating experiences and desires.

What is considered rationally unexplainable is given space. For example, River doesn’t specify whether she is communicating with a particular tree, or perhaps a collective tree consciousness. It is not known if Tree is in physical proximity or at a distance. Raven points to a shift in awareness — intentionally not thinking while in communication — and recognizies that rational thought can interfere with other forms of communication.

In both vignettes, the human-teachers leave space, and honour sense-making while perhaps recognising the edges of their own intuition. Do they notice themselves wanting to say that “trees don’t communicate” or smiling over the immature, and imaginative ideas being expressed here? Does the teacher perhaps notice the desire to jump in and correct or re-direct to something “important”? How would your teacher-intuition respond in these kinds of situations? And then how might teacher-intuition be changed if one wanted to allow River and Raven the space to be differently?

Taking these differences in intuitive form seriously can nurture different ways of being. Blenkinsop and Kuchta (Reference Blenkinsop and Kuchta2024) reminds us that, “the more our relational selves grow, the more capacity we have to connect with others, human and more-than-human” (p. 68). Relational-intuition may open ways to be more ecologically connected. This relational form of intuition is about connection over individualisation, and relationship instead of domination. It challenges the idea of the autonomous individual, the culturally assumed boundaries amongt humans, and those between the more-than-human world. Instead of operating from a rationalistic, mind-oriented way of being that encourages a disconnect between the body and context, relational-intuition is embodied and embedded. Our understanding of the world is limited if we only abide by an intuition that is framed to what is considered rationally explainable and experientially developed.

Wild pedagogies and relational-intuition

Relational-intuition lurks throughout Wild Pedagogies. For example, the touchstone, Learning that is Loving, Caring and Compassionate (Jickling & Blenkinsop, Reference Jickling and Blenkinsop2020) states, “we believe that humans are able, if given the opportunity, to develop rich relationships with myriad members of the more-than-human world. And, that these relationships of reciprocal care are part of overcoming the alienation that exists between many humans and the natural world” (p. 126). Being differently through relational-intuition can provide an opportunity to develop relationships and renegotiate them in ways that challenge long held assumptions about the more-than-human.

Relational-intuition can further be considered as a Wild Pedagogies move to “rewild” intuition. To push back on the control in education that can impact, restrict, and misinterpret intuition all together. This rewilding of intuition in a relational sense is not a solo endeavour, but in partnership with the more-than-human world for the intention of building relationships that are equitable and just. Wild Pedagogies states, “new, or maybe ancient, relationships are required for renewed flourishing to be possible, and achieving these relationships will require unsettling changes” (Jickling et al., Reference Jickling, Blenkinsop, Sitka-Sage and Timmerman2018, p. 24). Opening space for and honouring a different kind of intuition through pedagogy and practice can encourage more relational ways of being.