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, ForestSchool and play in the outdoors in the early years. Following a review of research on outdoor learning (Rickinson et al., 2004), the Department forEducation 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 arepresented 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.
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 understandhow 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 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 ForestSchool 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.
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 ForestSchool (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 arestill 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 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 zero14plusduring 2005/6:
- survey of current practice and aspirations for outdoor learning for 2-5 year olds in Devon
- survey of current practice and aspirations for outdoor learning for 6-11 year olds (Waite, Davis & Brown, 2006a).
- case studies of five settings’ approaches to outdoor learning (Waite, Davis & Brown, 2006b)
- exploration of pedagogical principles and process of ForestSchool 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 butfixed equipment wasnot 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.
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 pre-schools 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 butpersonal 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 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.