Comments On: a Review of Research on Outdoor Learning

Comments On: A Review Of Research On Outdoor Learning

By Margaret E Marker and David Cooper

The Review is presented in the form of a research report which is not reader friendly. It is the product of research undertaken between August 2003 and January 2004. It was published in March 2004 by the organisations that commissioned the research. The seven research authors were drawn from the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) and King’s College, London. We believe that this research has done academic fieldwork with its cognitive outcome, a great disservice. Structured fieldwork has been grouped with playground and community area up-grade, focussing on the local environment and its use, and with Outdoor Adventure, which in the English National Curriculum, falls under Physical Education. The Review will reinforce teachers’ fears and provide little actual evidence of successful outcomes.

The research was supported by the Field Studies Council (FSC), Department of Education and Skills, the English Outdoor Council, Groundwork (focused on playground and community space), the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, Skills Active and the British Ecological Society. These organisations were concerned about the decline in outdoor education, beyond the classroom. Their concern encompassed the lack of knowledge and field skills of up-coming field scientist recruits as well as of teachers, which had been attributed to the decline of fieldwork experience. There is growing evidence that opportunities for outdoor education are under threat and declining. To retain outdoor education, policy makers have to reconsider their role, in order to tackle barriers, encourage good programmes and support research. Development and training must ensure that good outdoor education becomes the norm.

A preliminary report on this review was presented at the FSC 60th Anniversary conference held at Royal Geographical Society on 10 December 2003. Mark Rickinson and Justin Dillon from KCL gave a 20-minute summary of the main findings. Those in the audience with experience of the development of school and student fieldwork, were disappointed. There was nothing new!

The Review states its aims as:

1. To evaluate the value of outdoor learning and

2. To evaluate its learning effectiveness.

The unstated aims include attempting to prove the value of outdoor learning, to improve the quality of the experience and the amount learnt.

The Contents of the Report are:

Executive summary (which is not an abstract)

1. Introduction

2. Conceptual overview

3. Research strategy and methods

4. The impact of fieldwork and visits

5. The impact of outdoor adventure activities

6. The impact of school grounds/community open space projects

7. Factors influencing outdoor learning and its provision

8. Key messages and implications

2x appendices

References

The researchers surveyed published material (in English only) on outdoor learning mostly from the British Isles but also some from the United States, Canada and Australia. The survey was restricted to a ten-year period, 1993-2003 which meant that many earlier developmental fieldwork papers, particularly in geography were excluded… During 1960-1980 English education was at the forefront of using outdoor education! The coverage of this review was also partial. There is no mention of Teaching Geography; Primary Geographer and only slight reference to the Geologists’ Association all of which publish findings on fieldwork. There is also no reference to Land Use UK (Edited by Walford, R. (1997) Geographical Association), the data for which was collected by schoolchildren and teachers. Their views of the future have been recorded.

The researchers considered three separate categories of outdoor education:

• Fieldwork and visits (the main focus for the FSC and the Ecological Society (cognitive dominant))
• Outdoor adventure (skills and affective dominant)
• School grounds and community projects

They separated the publications into four age categories: primary, secondary, sixth-form (A-level) and tertiary.

Their Review considers that few publications focussed on proving the value of the activity: that aims were not set out clearly nor followed through for effectiveness. However much fieldwork publication is written to provide other teachers with ideas and methods. The intention is not to prove the effectiveness of the activity which is taken as understood.

Outdoor education should have some or all of the following outcomes: cognitive, affective (attitudes, beliefs, values and self perception) and physical and behavioural (fitness and socialisation).

A substantial body of evidence exists to indicate that fieldwork, properly conceived, adequately planned and effectively followed-up offers opportunities to develop knowledge and skills, and adds value to classroom work. The experiencing ‘wild’ Britain as on Dartmoor or recording a quarry face, can be new for young people.

The Review is in favour of fieldwork being employed more widely since it has positive effects on long-term memory and reinforces the cognitive with the affective thus leading to higher order learning (page 24).

The analysis of evidence from Outdoor Adventure shows affective benefit but little cognitive gain (perhaps because Outdoor Adventure falls under Physical Education so cognitive development may not have been an aim). The experience may give rise to leadership, socialisation and self-responsibility. There is little discussion of what is available for less fit or able participants.

The Review’s findings can be summarised:

1. A longer period of sustained outdoor education is more effective
2. Preparatory work with the class is essential. By preparatory work, if it includes an introduction to field methods and skills, we would agree. Pupils must know what a task requires and how to use the equipment. Nevertheless an alternative view believes that novelty reinforces the experience and leads to greater concentration outdoors.
3. Fieldwork should be planned with structured learning activities, follow-up work and assessment must be related to the curriculum/syllabus.

The Report’s main conclusions are:

1. Fieldwork should be integrated with the curriculum
2. The structure and format of all outdoor education should be closely aligned to specific goals.
3. Longer (or cumulative) fieldwork provides more effective learning.

The Review findings give a clear endorsement to certain types of outdoor learning such as fieldwork. Even though the authors suggest that longer residential visits are most effective, a little is better than none.

The stress in this Review, on use of School grounds, detracts from true fieldwork. It relates more to improving the local environment rather than providing learning opportunities. Its inclusion may reflect a need to emphasise the value of these grounds. However the Review does raise the question as to whether all individuals benefit and have equal access. It also raises the question as to whether teachers are sufficiently skilled at tailoring teaching strategies and providing learning activities to overcome barriers, whether emotional or physical. It stresses that benefits are related to the degree with which outdoor learning is integrated into classroom learning. Does outdoor learning support or challenge classroom learning? This issue is not addressed.

Section 7: Factors influencing outdoor learning and its provision is the most important: It summarises why outdoor education is in decline. These include the risks involved, the cost of insurance, the 2003 attitude of the National Union of Teachers, the time required, the costs of transport. Furthermore many teachers come into schools with little or no experience of fieldwork because of its decline in colleges and universities. Is this a result of student indebtedness? Teachers feel insecure; they fear loss of control (is this because discipline at home is less tight today?). The present methods of teacher training leave less time for field training and previous experience may not easily develop into effective field teaching. The decline of geology and botany at A-level for example is a further challenge for field sciences. The introduction of a National Curriculum and frequent SATS tests results in highly structured timetables with little space for outdoor learning. Furthermore modular teaching at AS and A-levels has also restricted time available for field education. Time out is often seen as loss of education and not as enrichment. It is clear that Heads of School/ Department’s /LEAs’ attitude is most influential. DfES states that field centres have a technical responsibility but that the duty of care lies with the teachers and LEA. This means that teachers are wary of carrying out fieldwork! The totality results in few new teachers having had experience of the benefits of fieldwork.

In his statement in support of FSC’s Anniversary, HRH Prince Charles pointed out that:

1. United Kingdom is urban based but uses the countryside for recreation, relaxation and exercise.
2. Understanding of rural environments comes through fieldwork and outdoor adventure experiences. He shares the FSC’s concern that without regular first-hand engagement with the countryside, it is difficult for the majority of people to become scientifically, aesthetically and environmentally literate. Protection of country and heritage starts with rural fieldwork. Education in a rural context is also usually less risky than in towns. Schools have aims and duties in cognitive learning, in skill development, in attitudes and values and in socialisation. Outdoor education leads into these aspects.

OUR conclusions are that:

1. This Review makes little contribution to knowledge about effective fieldwork. Field methodology is still essential for many science subjects, such as botany, zoology, geography, environmental science and geology.

1. The remit (aims) had too wide a focus. Too disparate a coverage was attempted, resulting in a superficial overview.

1. The Review does emphasise the need for follow-up work.

1. Concern with inclusion of all children/students is laudable but probably not essential as long as they participate in the follow-up lessons.

1. Children/students can discuss only their own findings/experiences which reinforce learning but the context must be provided for them.

1. The view that attitudes and values can be taught as if they were facts is laughable!

Margaret E Marker and David Cooper

1 Resources/Fieldworkdownloaded from: