Draft paper for BERA Annual conference, Warwick, September 2006
Pedagogy or place?: attributed contributions of outdoor learning to creative
teaching and learning
Sue Waite and Tony Rea, Faculty of Education, University of Plymouth
Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual
Conference, University of Warwick, 6-9 September 2006
Abstract
Several forms of outdoor learning for children between the ages of 3 and 11 exist in the UK,
for example, outdoor adventures, residential centres, field studies, Forest School and play in
the outdoors in the early years.
Following a review of research on outdoor learning
(Rickinson et al., 2004), the Department for Education and Skills published a consultation
document (DfES, 2005), working towards an Education Outside the Classroom Manifesto.
The importance of outdoor learning is also highlighted in government policy, for example, the
Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage (QCA, 2000) and Every Child Matters (DfES,
2003). These initiatives for learning outside the classroom are mirrored by an increased
emphasis on creative approaches to teaching and learning (NACCCE, 1999; Roberts, 2006).
While the various forms of outdoor learning may have distinct aims and purposes, some
commonalities in what the outdoor context offers seem to be present and appear to be
differently weighted to mainstream education provision and perhaps to offer more
opportunities for creativity.
In this paper we focus particularly on the opportunities afforded by the outdoors to stimulate
creativity in children and teachers. We describe how practitioners in schools and in early
years settings report approaching outdoor learning. We also explore in what ways these
approaches can be viewed as creative and how the pedagogy outdoors may differ from that
indoors? Does nature itself provide the catalyst for creativity or are the distinct types of
pedagogy employed ‘outdoors’ sufficient regardless of context?
To explore these issues, we draw on data from research on aspects of outdoor learning for
an Early Years Childcare Development Partnership.
Findings are presented to highlight
indications of creativity and modified pedagogy. A combination of data collection methods
provides a range and richness of perspectives on the creative opportunities that the outdoor
environment may offer in the education of young children.
Our critical analysis of the data is informed by research literature on outdoor learning and
pedagogy. In particular, the attributed contributions of nature and different pedagogies to
creative learning opportunities for children and holistic experience is examined in the light of
learning theories, Kellert’s (2002) typology of values in nature and Alexander’s (2001)
pedagogies.
1
Draft paper for BERA Annual conference, Warwick, September 2006
The challenge of methodological approaches to the study of this topic is briefly discussed in
drawing together the findings from these qualitative and quantitative studies. Possible future
avenues for research into outdoor learning in the early years are suggested.
Introduction
Recent government policy supports the development of outdoor learning (DfES,
2005) and creativity (Roberts, 2006) in teaching and learning. For example, the
continuing professional development materials linked to Excellence and Enjoyment
(DfES, 2004) emphasise more locally determined approaches to developing learning
contexts (Waite, Carrington & Passy, 2005) with an apparent understanding that
tailoring learning contexts to individuals’ interests will facilitate learning. Clarity of
thinking about underlying pedagogical principles is important to understand how
practice in these areas might develop (Dillon, Morris, O’Donnell, Reid, Rickinson &
Scott, 2005).
Pedagogy
Alexander (2001) offers a framework for comparing pedagogies which combines six
types of teaching underpinned by three basic value positions:

Individualism – focus on the child, autonomy and personalised learning

Community – focus on the group, collaboration, responsibilities and rights

Collectivism – focus on the class, cohesion, inclusivity.
However, Dillon et al. (2005), with particular reference to outdoor education, also
acknowledge the learner’s part in pedagogy through three learning theory
perspectives:
the
associative
(strengthening
behavioural
associations);
the
constructive (making meaning from experiences) and the situative (engaging in
acceptable social practices) and a typology with five different emphases: the
experience, outdoor context, pedagogy, an integrating idea and learning.
There are few references to learning theory in the literature about outdoor learning
(Rickinson, 2001). Literature suggests that the most widely adopted pedagogic
method stems from experiential learning theory (Kolb, 1984) which underpins a
number of practical models for use in the outdoors (Beard & Wilson, 2002; Dennison
& Kirk, 1990; Exeter, 2001). This has led to varying degrees emphasis on
‘processing’ (Bacon, 1987) or ‘reviewing’ (Greenaway, 2002) becoming embedded
into outdoor programmes with little research conducted on how the amount of
2
Draft paper for BERA Annual conference, Warwick, September 2006
processing may affect outcomes (McKenzie, 2000). Undue focus on ‘processing’,
however, is challenged by Waite and Davis (in press) and James (1980), who
suggested that natural phenomena may ‘speak for themselves’ rather than always
require mediation by adults. Research indicates that reflection can occur
spontaneously (Rea, 2004). Other theories of learning such as behaviourism
(Skinner, 1980), social constructivist theories (Vygotsky, 1998), multiple intelligences
(Gardner, 1993) and emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1996) and theories of
embodied and situated
learning (Gardner, 1993; Lewin, 1936; Wenger, 1998),
however, may all play a part in explaining the outdoor learning process. Our research
suggests these theories are being applied in outdoor practice, and we recommend
that more theorising and study is needed in this area.
Place - the outdoor context
A contested area of outdoor learning is the extent to which the context itself is
instrumental in reported benefits. Kellert (2002) offers a typology of nine values in
nature which may help to understand the role of ‘place’ in outdoor learning. He
defines ‘scientific’ value as systematic study of the structure and function of nature.
‘Symbolic’ is represented as the use of nature for language and thought.
‘Dominionistic’ relates to mastery, physical control and dominance of nature; whilst
‘utilitarian’ is about the practical and material exploitation of nature. The ‘naturalistic’
value depends on a direct experience and exploration of nature. ‘Aesthetic’ relates to
the beauty of nature, ‘humanistic’ to strong emotional attachment to nature,
‘moralistic’ to spiritual reverence and ethical concern for nature and ‘negativistic’ is
about fear and alienation from nature. Wilson (2002) argues that biophilia or innate
attachment to nature may explain why outdoor contexts are attractive to people and
offer a holistic approach to learning. A natural environment is certainly valued by
Forest School practitioners (Waite et al., 2006c) but not all contexts for outdoor
learning share this requirement.
For others, it appears to be more about the
opportunities for movement, space and freedom that being outside affords rather
than inherent ‘wildness’ (Gass, 1995; Kimball & Bacon, 1993). However, risk and
challenge would appear to be elements that places for outdoor learning require in
order to engage children and offer continuing opportunities for learning and
enjoyment (Children’s Play Council, 2005). These are elements which are often
associated with creativity.
3
Draft paper for BERA Annual conference, Warwick, September 2006
What is meant by creativity?
Roberts’ (2006) review notes an overlap between creativity, independent and
effective learning and critical thinking, which corresponds to similar congruence in
our own research on Forest School (Waite & Davis, in press). Generic skills in
creativity are proposed to include idea generation; teamwork; sensing opportunities;
pitching and auditioning; giving and responding to criticism and making things
happen by getting people and things to turn ideas into reality. However, greater
clarity and shared meanings of what creativity comprises are still advocated
(Roberts, 2006, p.34). The definition of creativity in Roberts’ review (2006) appears
to be somewhat incremental; further aspects are introduced throughout the document
so that at page 57 it is suddenly ‘not just about self-expression’, but also about
‘discipline’. This perhaps reflects a certain tension between economic and social and
emotional well-being drivers for creativity and also echoes similarly broad
understandings and interpretations of outdoor learning. The main defining element is
the creative process, which encourages ‘playing with’ a wide range of options in
order to explore best-fit solutions. This ‘playfulness’ and emphasis on process are
also features of some forms of outdoor learning (Waite & Davis, in press).
Support for creativity
Roberts (2006) argues creativity is supported by personalisation, school autonomy
and increased emphasis on the voice of children and young people as portrayed in
Excellence and Enjoyment ( DfES, 2003). The suggestion by Dillon et al. (2005) and
Scott et al. (2003) that greater integration of mainstream aims and outdoor education
is needed holds similar tensions to those outlined in connection with creativity by
Roberts (2006). For example, the production of worksheets and schemes of work in
the Growing Schools Initiative (Scott et al. 2003) could be seen as counterproductive
to the experiential and serendipitous affordances of the outdoors. Similarly, extended
schools that merely replicate the educational focus of the school day will do little to
provide catalysts for creativity as a comparative study of Danish and English
extended schools points out (Barnardo’s, 2006). Furthermore, some practitioners
resist an uncritical acceptance of positive links between creative experience,
standards and national strategies (Roberts, 2006; Waite et al., 2005). While there
may be a plausible connection between creativity and more responsive and
collaborative approaches to teaching and learning which might in turn offer
alternative ways to engage children, some practitioners remain sceptical about
4
Draft paper for BERA Annual conference, Warwick, September 2006
whether such innovations will be valued without explicit inspection criteria (Waite et
al., 2005).
The importance of authenticity, taking risks and pupil involvement in supporting
creativity is acknowledged in Roberts’ (2006) review and he notes that ‘a broad and
balanced play-based curriculum‘ for children 0-5 will provide a ‘cornerstone for
successful lifelong learning’ (p17). This, he argues, needs to be continued into later
schooling so that space is allowed both physically and conceptually for play and
informal learning which often give rise to creative ideas (Wood & Bennett, 2001).
This may mean teachers’ roles becoming more facilitative than transmissive
(Alexander, 2001) so that not only do outside agencies provide short-term creative
input but it is also embedded in regular mainstream experience.
It is a broad definition of pedagogy which includes the learner, values and place that
our study of Forest School leaders’ pedagogical principles attempted to address in
order to aid conceptual understanding between this group of outdoor educators and
mainstream practitioners so that preparation for Forest School experience for
children could move beyond logistics to issues of purpose, curriculum and pedagogy
(Dillon et al., 2005). The elucidation of these principles allow us to consider to what
extent this mode of outdoor learning coincides with mainstream practitioners’
aspirations for outdoor learning through comparison with some of our findings from
surveys about outdoor learning in settings for children aged between 2-11 and
consequent case studies. Some evaluation research has concentrated more on what
took place rather than unravelling how and why (Scott, et al, 2003). The progressive
focus of our research enabled us to begin to explore such explanatory factors. Our
consideration of pedagogies employed in outdoor education and features deemed
supportive of creativity lead us to argue that outdoor learning may offer appropriate
conditions for fostering creativity.
We offer in the following sections some
illustrations of possible links to creativity from our recent research.
Research for an Early Years Childcare Development Partnership
Four projects were funded by Devon zero14plus during 2005/6:
1. survey of current practice and aspirations for outdoor learning for 2-5 year olds
in Devon
5
Draft paper for BERA Annual conference, Warwick, September 2006
2. survey of current practice and aspirations for outdoor learning for 6-11 year
olds (Waite, Davis & Brown, 2006a).
3. case studies of five settings’ approaches to outdoor learning (Waite, Davis &
Brown, 2006b)
4. exploration of pedagogical principles and process of Forest School leaders
(Waite, Davis & Brown , 2006c).
Signs of creativity in the surveys
A questionnaire about outdoor learning was distributed to all early years’ settings,
primary schools and youth service providers (N = 1933) in Devon. Areas of enquiry
included practitioners’ values and attitudes towards education outdoors, their current
outdoor provision and practice and obstacles to further development to which they
might aspire. We received 334 responses, an overall return rate of 17%. This figure
however masks different levels of response from different sectors; Schools returned
26%; Preschools/day nurseries, 28 %; Childminders, 9%; Out-of-school clubs, 10%.
The survey shed light on the nature of ‘place’ for outdoor learning currently available
in settings.
Overall, the most common facilities for outdoor learning were spaces adjacent to the
settings. Here, ‘place’ is convenient, allowing seamless use of the outdoors
sometimes for activities that could equally take place inside. Playgrounds were also
quite common especially for schools as the traditional form of outdoor space.
However, these have been described as relatively barren areas for creative learning
and play (Armitage, 2001). Flower gardens were common for childminders and
‘preschools’. Many settings wanted to develop a vegetable garden, although wild
areas and adventure playgrounds were also often mentioned. This may indicate an
increasing interest in greener and riskier settings for outdoor learning. McKendrick
(2005) in his survey of Scottish school grounds also found a nature–related focus
most prevalent in settings for younger age groups.
The most common form of
equipment across settings was flexible outdoor equipment.
Schools had higher
levels of fixed outdoor equipment compared to other types of setting, which seemed
linked to availability of funding but fixed equipment was not always highly valued as it
was sometimes seen as relatively inflexible for play and learning. Armitage (2001)
suggests that natural and versatile materials stimulate richer play and learning
opportunities.
6
Draft paper for BERA Annual conference, Warwick, September 2006
The extent to which settings were satisfied with their outdoor space is indicative of
the match between current provision and their desired purposes for outdoor learning.
Over 90% of childminders and private nurseries reported being entirely satisfied with
their outdoor space, but only about 50% of schools and preschools were. Even
fewer (40%) nursery classes and out-of-school clubs said they were completely
satisfied with their outdoor space. While about 90% of ‘preschool’ settings had plans
for development of their outdoor learning, only about 50% of childminders reported
this. However, this may indicate lack of funds as well as high levels of satisfaction.
The level of dissatisfaction in schools, nursery classes, out-of-school clubs and preschools suggests that ‘place’ is highly important to their vision for opportunities for
outdoor learning and may constrain what can currently happen in that space.
Certainly the majority of settings (over 80%) reported the potential of the outdoors for
learning as good to excellent. Physical activities in the outdoors were the most
frequently occurring daily activity but personal and social development were also
quite common. The emphasis on personal and social development suggests that the
outdoors is seen as a suitable context for addressing affective issues. There was a
marked decline in the occurrence of outdoor opportunities for personal and social
development activities in school between key stage 1, when children are aged
between 5 and 7, (30%) and 2, when children are aged between 7 and 11, (10%).
This may reflect a shift to more core curricular emphasis, while Roberts (2006) and
Wood and Bennett (2001) advocate retention of learner-centred approaches to
progression and continuity as more supportive of creativity.
Out-of-school clubs reported higher levels of creative activities in the outdoors than
other settings. Barnardo’s (2006) noted that creative activities are partly determined
by whether the club follows a school agenda or is modelled more on a free-time basis
as in Denmark. Out-of-school clubs placed emphasis on developing independence
and awareness of the environment most, and creating a balanced curriculum least.
This low rating for creating a balanced curriculum may mean that clubs are aligning
themselves with playwork and free play opportunities rather than as an extension of
school, contrary to findings for the English sample in Barnardo’s (2006) study.
Despite the highly rated relevance of the outdoors to creativity in schools (83%)
compared to only 50% for ‘letting off steam’, creative activities and environmental
7
Draft paper for BERA Annual conference, Warwick, September 2006
education were least commonly reported.
It would seem that practitioners’
aspirations for outdoor learning were not always fulfilled. Given the possible lower
potential for creative activity during the school day, the opportunity of freedom in
clubs may have special value for promoting creativity.
Research suggests that autonomy and choice facilitate creativity (Craft, 2002).
Children’s involvement in decisions about outdoor learning varied.
It was most
commonly reported that children were active in deciding what constituted acceptable
behaviour outdoors in schools and ‘preschools’, but in out-of-school clubs and with
childminders they had more say on whether or not to go out at all. We did not gather
information about how much activities outdoors were child-led though this would also
be interesting in relation to creativity.
McKendrick (2005) found 77% of primary
schools had involved children in at least three aspects of school grounds
improvement (initiating, planning, fundraising or constructing). In our case study
(Waite et al, 2006b), pupil involvement appeared a crucial factor in their use of the
outdoors for learning, building a continuing sense of ownership and creative
adaptation.
From our case studies of five settings engaged in ‘good practice’ in outdoor learning,
we identified two major principles supportive of creative teaching and learning,
diversity and holism. We used a pragmatic definition of ‘good practice’ as judged by
‘the enthusiasm both of the students and teachers involved in the […] way of
working; for it to seem to improve learning; and for changes in practice to feel doable
and sustainable over time’ (Fielding et al, 2005). We did not intend these settings to
be examples of the ‘best’ way to provide for outdoor learning, but their engagement
with outdoor learning made them especially well placed to raise issues for debate.
Diversity
In the primary school, the complexity of outdoor learning as a concept was apparent
and we argue that this diversity may be one of the factors that contribute to outdoor
learning’s potential for creative teaching and learning. People in the school had
different understandings of the term outdoor learning:
it’s using the environment (Art coordinator)
anything that a child would learn or gain knowledge or gain skills from in an
outdoor environment (Head teacher)
8
Draft paper for BERA Annual conference, Warwick, September 2006
the first thing that comes into my head is the natural world when I think about
outdoor learning because it is something that is missing in a way. (Lead on
outdoor learning)
I think it is the most natural way of learning. … Children should be out
exploring, making dens, learning things for themselves. You get the highest
level of learning when a child is doing what they want to do because that is
where their brain is at at the time and that is where they are making
connections. (Nursery nurse)
We do about plants, PE.
Yeah, PE and Geography and sometimes Science.
Yeah, experiments.
And Science club - we used to do lots of things outside.
And different clubs. (Year 4 focus group)
Sometimes we go outside and we draw things. (Year 6 focus group)
Other purposes for outdoor learning were identified by the children in interviews,
including physical exercise and freedom, enhanced learning through first-hand
experience, enjoyment, persistence, a wider range of possible activities and
increased confidence through facing of fears. A clear sense emerged that staff and
pupil purposes for outdoor learning varied, that the outdoors was valued for nature,
child-centred learning, authenticity and affective benefits. The diversity of possible
outcomes means that clarity about what benefits different sorts of outdoor
opportunities will bring may be necessary so that the inclusion of outdoor learning is
not merely tokenistic but relates to children’s specific interests and needs.
This
specificity of purpose is an aspect of outdoor learning which merits further
exploration, particularly in relation to supporting creativity.
Another facet of diversity in the outdoors is novelty and the value placed on
serendipitous opportunities to engage children, as illustrated in the following
comments:
A month or so ago the kids were all stood in a long line with me watching this
hedgehog. I have never seen anything like it! Moving from the playground area
across to the wild area and scurrying and I’ve never seen a hedgehog move so fast
and they were just enthralled and so of course immediately that happened we went
straight into the classroom and we talked about wildlife, hedgehogs, you name it, I got
the Hodgeheg book, about the hedgehog that gets a bang on the head and then does
9
Draft paper for BERA Annual conference, Warwick, September 2006
everything – all its words go back to front – like me at the moment! (Laughs) But it is
a catalytic boost to the children’s idea about how to look after the planet.
(Art coordinator)
The unpredictability of the natural world may be harnessed to rekindle excitement
leading to creative teaching opportunities.
Clearly, outdoor learning is a broad concept and at primary school level
encompasses on and off-site, within the curriculum and extra curricular, daily and
residential experiences, as the time spent listening and watching in this school
showed.
It is interesting to note that while the staff’s definitions were generic,
highlighting experiential and holistic learning, the children mentioned extended
school and described their outdoor learning in terms of subjects, perhaps reflecting
the subject separation which Wood and Bennett (2001) argue impedes progression
from Early Years to primary schooling. Nundy (2001) suggests that linking of affective
and cognitive experiences contributes to learning and the fact that staff were
foregrounding some of these qualities may indicate the beginnings of a relaxation of
the tight grip of core subject testing on primary curricula (Waite and Davis, in press).
This may in turn signal a return to more creative teaching and learning.
Holism
For early years settings the standards imperative has tended to be more attenuated
(Woods and Bennett, 2001).
A holistic approach was apparent in reflecting on
observations made at a private nursery, where the diverse nature of the outdoors
appeared to engage all the senses. The grid below organises the features that the
children saw, heard, tasted, touched and smelled outdoors. However, the stimuli
found in the natural environment is constantly changing, attracting children’s attention
in new and different ways and keeping them alert. It is the ‘extraordinary sensory
diversity and variability of the natural world’ (Kellert, 2002, p139) that provides a rich
context for learning.
Sight
trees, ferns, moss, logs, leaves, stream, stones, twigs, fire, sticks,
flowers, mini beasts, catkins, shadows, birds, squirrels, rabbits
Sound
birds, wind, fire, stream
Taste
marshmallows
Touch
bark/logs, warm/cold, wet/dry, moss, compost, sand, chalk on
concrete
10
Draft paper for BERA Annual conference, Warwick, September 2006
Smell
smoke, compost
Pedagogical principles in Forest School
Our final project was intended to clarify the aims and pedagogical principles
associated with Forest School so that mainstream settings could better determine
appropriate outdoor provision for their children. It had two phases: a focus group of
Forest School trainers and a questionnaire based on a decision theoretic model
(James, 1997) sent to all those who had undertaken Forest School leader training in
or near Devon over recent years. (For a fuller explanation of methods, see Waite et
al, 2006c). 270 questionnaires were sent out, only 15 were returned. It is not known
whether the low response rate can be attributed to poor contact details, lack of time
to complete it or a paucity of practising Forest School leaders. The small sample
also has implications for the interpretation of the findings, which should be treated
with caution.
From the focus group discussion, the identified aims centred on behavioural,
emotional and social development. Content (examples of activities) of Forest School
sessions was linked to nature, space, skill development, challenge and listening.
The pedagogical principles or process clustered around responsiveness to individual
needs (Piaget, 1973), including an awareness of different learning styles (Gardner,
1993), repetition over time (Skinner, 1980) and the learning environment (Lewin,
1936). Outcomes mentioned were either tangible artefacts or intuitively assessed
‘soft skills’.
Key statements derived from this discussion were used in the
questionnaire, indicated by inverted commas.
In the questionnaire, self esteem was identified as the single most important aim and
outcome and was linked in terms of process with the opportunity to try things several
times (Skinner, 1980), breaking down tasks (Vygotsky, 1998), movable boundaries
(Maslow, 1987) and the natural environment (Kellert, 2002). It was also linked to
creativity as an outcome. Interestingly, the aim of ‘awakening the imagination’ had
two distinctly different rankings; around 3 for some and 8 for others, which may
reflect differences in practice and underlying values for creativity in these Forest
School leaders. The aim of ‘awakening the imagination’ seemed to have several
links: positively to the ‘opportunity to try things several times’, the ‘repeated process’
11
Draft paper for BERA Annual conference, Warwick, September 2006
(Skinner, 1980), the ‘opportunities to fiddle for kinaesthetic learners’ (Gardner, 1999),
the ‘natural’ (Kellert, 2002) and ‘supportive environment’ (Maslow, 1987) and
‘enhancement of the whole learning experience ’ (Lewin, 1936); negatively with the
‘National Curriculum’ (Carr et al, 2005). These factors suggest that behaviourist
principles of repetition and having time and space are viewed as important by Forest
School leaders in order to foster creativity and the imagination and that linking
activities with the National Curriculum may suppress opportunities for awakening the
imagination.
Play is another aspect of creativity and higher ranking for ‘allowing play’ as an aim
tended to occur with lower rankings for ‘getting children used to a pattern’, ‘linking to
the National Curriculum’ and ‘fiddling for kinaesthetic learners’. It appears that some
Forest School leaders may emphasise ‘free play’ more than others who see linking to
the National Curriculum as more vital. A cross tabulation was performed for aims and
outcomes to explore links between choices for the importance of aims and the
outcomes mentioned. Unsurprisingly, the aim to ‘develop self esteem’ was linked
most strongly to the outcome of ‘develops self esteem’, but a fairly strong association
also existed between a high ranking aim of ‘self esteem’ and ‘creativity’. Ranking for
behaviour improvement was also linked to creativity. These are interesting
relationships worthy of further exploration. It appears that practitioners emphasising
affective issues may also place importance on creativity. The BERA Early Years
Special Interest Group’s review of Early Years Research: Pedagogy, Curriculum,
Adult Roles, Training and Professionalism (BERA, 2003) suggest that more research
is needed to focus on creativity and its role in sociability (BERA, 2003). It would
appear that the relationship may be bilateral with sociability also impacting on
creativity. ‘Teamwork’ was linked to ‘benefits in mental health’ and ‘creativity’ and
more moderately to ‘getting the children to fit into class and enjoy learning’ and to
‘sometimes drawing or writing about their experience’.
This may suggest that
community values (Alexander, 2001) are influential indirectly for mental health and
creativity as well as more directly helping achieve conformity in school.
‘Allowing play’ was linked to ‘getting children to fit into class’ and ‘active citizenship
and community involvement’. ‘Getting children to fit into class’ appears to be what
teachers sometimes mean by personal and social education (Wood and Bennett,
2001) rather than support towards self-actualisation (Maslow, 1987).
12
Draft paper for BERA Annual conference, Warwick, September 2006
The core outcomes of Forest School would appear to be ‘develops self esteem’,
‘huge benefits for mental health’, ‘impact on attitudes to outdoors and physical
activity’,
‘teamwork’,
‘interest
in
the
natural
environment’
and
‘creativity’.
Furthermore, affective benefits also seemed to be associated with creativity.
However, creativity would not appear to be an outcome for all outdoor education.
Dillon et al. (2003) suggest that learning from farm visits, included developing social
skills, self-confidence and initiative, improved attitudes toward country life and
greater discipline (p.24). Further research is needed to explore the relative emphasis
in different forms of outdoor education as advocated by Dillon et al (2005).
The use of the decision theoretic approach also indicates some possible gaps
between the aspirations of practitioners and their practice, which would be worthy of
further study.
The utility values (James, 1997) for the outcomes, derived by
combining importance with the likelihood that it will be achieved, suggest some
ambivalence affecting some of the ranks. ‘Physical health improvement’ was seen
as more likely to occur than ‘creativity’, despite creativity being ranked more highly
for importance. This concurs with the relative dominance of physical over creative
activities in outdoor settings in our survey.
Methodological challenges
Contact details for sending out the questionnaires were derived from published
sources and distribution lists held by Devon zero14plus or training colleges, but these
were not entirely reliable. We found in Foundation Stage Advisory Teacher cluster
group meetings that some staff present had not received copies. Response rates
were therefore potentially distorted by the inaccuracy of contact details, the standard
form for all settings made them less appropriate for some and schools receive many
requests for survey completion. We also found that although settings were quite
clear about the sorts of aims they wished to promote and the sorts of spaces they
wished to develop, the link between the two was not always apparent. It seemed that
the particular affordances of the outdoors for pedagogy were not elicited by our
survey design. However, our follow up with case study methods helped to explicate
some of these issues. The decision theoretic approach may also be a useful tool to
help to distinguish between achievable and aspirational aims for outdoor learning.
13
Draft paper for BERA Annual conference, Warwick, September 2006
Conclusion
In summary, it would seem that both pedagogy, for example, trying things several
times and repeated process and place in terms of a natural and supportive
environment were seen as contributory to creativity in the outdoor environment in
Forest School. The concern that reducing creativity to a directly taught basic skill like
literacy or numeracy (Roberts, 2006) may remove its essential quality has resonance
with the fear that by institutionalising outdoor learning its value will be diminished
(Broderick and Pearce, 2001). There is also some ambivalence amongst Forest
School leaders about the merits of ensuring success (Murray & O’Brien, 2005) over
the importance of risk taking for creative endeavour (Roberts, 2006). However, it
could be argued in line with Maslow (1987) that experience of success may build
self-esteem which in turn may lead to a tendency to take more risks. This
progression echoes a developmental view of readiness (Piaget, 1973) coupled with
facilitative teaching (Alexander,2001 ) in a socio-cultural (Vygotsky, 1998) and
situated context (Lewin, 1936).
The examples of outdoor learning in our research, then, appear to possess elements
of theories of learning based on behaviourist (Skinner, 1980), constructivist (Piaget,
1998),
and
social
constructivist
(Vygotsky,
1998),
multiple
intelligences
(Gardner,1999) and life space (Lewin,1936) principles. The teaching style of Forest
School seems to be largely facilitative, underpinned by individualist and community
values (Alexander, 2001) and situated in naturalistic values (Kellert, 2002). Unlike
much of the literature on outdoor learning, we found relatively few examples of
reviewing or ‘processing’ opportunities for the children to make sense of their
experiences. Thus the dominance of classic experiential models of outdoor education
within settings or in Forest School for this age group is challenged. However, it is
clear that the relative emphases placed on these theories of learning are rarely made
explicit in any description of pedagogical approach in the literature on different forms
of outdoor learning and greater attention is needed in studies to align espoused
values, contexts and observed practice, acknowledging finer levels of detail
according to purpose than has hitherto been usual. Dillon et al’s (2005) structure
may be helpful for closer examination of particular outdoor experiences. For Forest
School, one manifestation of outdoor learning, place seems to form an integral part of
pedagogy, and does not appear to be separable from the other parts of the process.
This may seem unsurprising given the situated nature of their work, but outdoor
14
Draft paper for BERA Annual conference, Warwick, September 2006
adventure climbing experiences are replicated on indoor climbing walls and many
early years practitioners report that planned activities could take place inside or out.
Future research therefore needs to examine the relationship of pedagogy and place
in other forms of outdoor learning and further explore their relative contributions to
creativity.
References
Alexander, R. (2001). Border Crossings: towards a comparative pedagogy. Comparative
Education, 37(4), 507-523.
Armitage, M. (2001). The ins and outs of school playground play: children’s use of ‘play
places'. In J. C. Bishop & M. Curtis (Eds.), Play today in the primary school
playground: Life, learning and creativity (pp. 37-58). Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Bacon, S. B. (1987). The Conscious Use of Metaphor in Outward Bound. Denver: Colorado:
Outward Bound School.
Barnardo's (2006) More School. less play? The role of play in the Extended School in
Denmark and England. Available online at
http://www.barnardos.org.uk/more_school_less_play.pdf [Accessed 1.8.06]
Beard, C., & Wilson, J. P. (2002). The Power of Experiential Learning, a handbook for
trainers and educators. London: Kogan Page.
BERA (2003) Early Years Research: Pedagogy, Curriculum and Adult Roles, Training and
Professionalism. Available online at
http://www.bera.ac.uk/pdfs/BERAEarlyYearsReview31May03.pdf?PHPSESSID=88ca
f79682da33b6786b1f20cde415d1 [Accessed 10.8.06]
Broderick A. & Pearce G. (2001) Indoor adventure training: a dramaturgical approach to
management development. Journal of Organisational Change Management 14(3),
239-252.
Carr, M., McGee, C., Jones, A., McKinley, E., Bell, B., Barr, H. & Simpson, T. (2005) The
Effects of Curricula and Assessment on Pedagogical Approaches and on Educational
Outcomes, Ministry of Education, New Zealand, Available online at
http://www.minedu.govt.nz/print_doc.cfm?layout+document&documentid=5610&ind
[Accessed 1.11.05]
Children's Play Council (2005) Play in coordinated children's services, London, Children's
Play Council
Craft, A. (2002) Creativity and Early Years Education: A lifewide foundation, London:
Continuum.
Dennison, B., & Kirk, R. (1990). Do, Review, Learn, Apply. Oxford: Blackwell.
DfES (2003). Excellence and Enjoyment: A strategy for primary schools,
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/primarydocument/docs/DfES-Primary-Ed.doc [accessed 21.2.05].
DfES (2003) Green Paper: Every Child Matters: Change for Children. Department for
Education and Skills.
DfES (2004). Excellence and Enjoyment: learning and teaching in the primary years,
Professional development materials, Nottingham: DfES.
DfES. (2005). Education Outside the Classroom Manifesto consultation. Department for
Education and Skills.
Dillon, J., Morris, M., O'Donnell, L., Reid, A., Rickinson, M. & Scott, W. (2005) Engaging and
Learning with the Outdoors - The final Report of the Outdoor classroom in a Rural
Context Action Research Project. NFER
Exeter, D. J. (2001). Learning in the Outdoors. London: Outward Bound.
Fielding, M., Bragg, S., Craig, J., Cunningham, I., Eraut, M., Gillinson, S.,et al. (2005).
Factors Influencing the Transfer of Good Practice. Research Report 615. London:
DfES.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple Intelligences: The Theory in Practice. New York: HarperCollins.
15
Draft paper for BERA Annual conference, Warwick, September 2006
Gass, M. A. (1995). Adventure family therapy: An innovative approach answering the
question of lasting change with adjudicated youth? Monograph on Youth in the
1990s, 4, 103-117.
Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional Intelligence. London: Bloomsbury.
Greenaway, R. (2002). The active reviewing guide.
Retrieved 31 July, 2006, from
http://reviewing.co.uk/
James, H. (1997) Applying Decision Theoretical Programme Evaluation Methods to the
Reintegration of children with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, Educational
Psychology in Practice. 13 (3), 170-175.
James, T. (1980). Can the Mountains Speak for Themselves? Retrieved June, 2005, from
http://www.wilderdom.com/facilitation/Mountains.html
Kellert, S.R. (2002). Experiencing nature: Affective, cognitive and evaluative development in
children. In P.H. Kahn & S.R. Kellert (Eds.) Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural
and Evolutionary Investigations, (pp.117-151) London: MIT.
Kimball, R. O., & Bacon, S. B. (1993). The wilderness challenge model. In M. A. Gass (Ed.),
Adventure therapy: theraputic applications of adventure programming. Dubuque:
Kendall Hunt.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning: turning experience into learning. New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology (F. Heider & G. M. Heider, Trans.).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
McKendrick, J. H. (2005) School Grounds in Scotland Research Report, Edinburgh:
sportscotland
Available
on
line
at
http://www.sportscotland.org.uk/ChannelNavigation/Resource+Library/Publications/S
chool+Grounds+in+Scotland.htm [Accessed 17.7.06]
McKenzie, M. D. (2000). How are adventure education program outcomes achieved? A
review of the literature. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 5(1), 19-28.
Maslow, A. H. (1987) Motivation and Personality, Cambridge, Harper and Row.
Murray, R. & O’Brien, L. (2005) ‘Such enthusiasm – a joy to see’; An evaluation of Forest
school in England. Farnham: Forest Research, New Economic Foundation . Available
online at
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/ForestSchoolEnglandReport.pdf/$FILE/ForestSchoolE
nglandReport.pdf [Accessed 27.7.06].
NACCCE. (1999). All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education. London: DfEE.
Nundy, S. (1999) The Fieldwork Effect: The role and Impact of Fieldwork in the Upper
Primary School. International Research in Geographical and Environmental
Education, 8, 190-198.
Piaget, J. (1973) The Psychology of Intelligence, Totowa, Littlefield and Adams.
QCA. (2000). Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage. London: QCA/Department for
Education and Skills.
Rea, T. (2004). Reflective thought in an outdoor environment. Journal of Leisure Studies and
Recreation Education.
Rickinson, M. (2001) Learners and Learning in Environmental Education. Environmental
Education Research, 7, 3, 207-321
Rickinson, M., Dillon, J., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M. Y., Sanders, D. & Benefield, P.
(2004) A Review of Research on Outdoor Learning, Shrewsbury, NFER/Field Studies
Council.
Roberts, P. (2006) Nurturing Creativity in Young People: a report to Government to inform
future policy. London: Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Department for
Education
and
Skills.
Available
online
at
http://www.culture.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/CFF917DI_DIIF_4352_9B77_c178288F2474
4/0/nurture_sections.pdf [accessed 1.8.06].
Scott, W., Reid, A. & Jones, N.(2003) Growing Schools- Innovation Fund Projects: an
external evaluation. Council for Environmental Education and University of Bath.
Skinner, B. F. (1980) The experimental analysis of operant behaviour: a history. IN RIEBER,
R. W. & SALZINGER, K. (Eds.) Psychology: theoretical-historical perspectives. New
Yok, Academic Press.
16
Draft paper for BERA Annual conference, Warwick, September 2006
Vygotsky, L. (1998). The genesis of higher mental functions. In K. Richardson & S. Sheldon
(Eds.), Cognitive development to adolescence. Hove: Erlbaum.
Waite, S., Carrington, V. And Passy, R. (2005) Final report: Evaluation of Excellence and
Enjoyment: Learning and teaching in the primary years continuing professional
development materials, report for Primary National Strategy
Waite, S. & Davis, B. (in press) The contribution of free play and structured activities in
Forest School1 to learning beyond cognition: an English case: Chapter in edited book, Ravn,
B. & Kryger, N. (in press) Learning beyond Cognition
Waite, S., Davis, B. And Brown, K. (2006a) Final report: Current Practice and Aspirations for
Outdoor learning for 2-11 year olds in Devon, July 2006, report for funding body EYDCP
(zero14plus) and participants
Waite, S., Davis, B. And Brown, K. (2006b) Final report: Five stories of outdoor learning from
settings for 2-11 year olds in Devon, July 2006, report for funding body EYDCP (zero14plus)
and participants
Waite, S., Davis, B. And Brown, K. (2006c) Final report: Forest School principles: why we do
what we do, July 2006, report for funding body EYDCP (zero14plus) and participants
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, R.A. (2002). The wonders of nature: Honoring children’s ways of knowing, Retrieved
3rd January 2006 from
http://www.earlychildhood.com/Articles/index.cfm?FuseAction=Article&A=70
Wood, E. & Bennett, N. (2001) Early Childhood Teachers' Theories of Progression and
Continuity, International Journal of Early Years Education, 9, 3, 229-243.
1
Forest School, as it has been developed in England from a Danish model of Forest kindergarten, is a particular kind of
educational programme that takes place in the outdoors, preferably in a natural wooded area. It is characterised by positive
relationships, achievable tasks and fun. It usually takes place in one session per week over a six to ten week programme. The
Forest School principles include building on an individual’s innate motivation and positive attitude to learning, offering them
opportunities to take risks and make choices and initiate learning for themselves .
17