A review of research on outdoor learning - Field Studies Council

4.3 Affective impactsIn a study referred to in Section 4.2, the experience <strong>of</strong>primary-age students working in a park helped by USdoctoral students changed the perceptions <strong>of</strong> theteachers and students toward each other, towards thepark and <strong>of</strong> themselves (Milton et al., 1995).In a study carried out by Knapp and Barrie (2001),approximately 500 students (US Grades 4-6) fromthree urban school districts in Indiana were taken onfield trips to a park. Students experienced one or other<strong>of</strong> two approaches to the fieldwork. The data indicatethat the focus <strong>of</strong> the study <strong>of</strong> the programme (ecologyor environmental issues) did not significantly alter theway students responded to the knowledge section <strong>of</strong>the evaluation instruments. The post-visit evaluationshowed that there was little impact on students’attitudes towards the park site or to the related subjectmatter following either presentation type. It did notseem to matter what students did on the field trip –the impact on their knowledge was the same in bothcases. For most students, the trips had a negligibleimpact on attitudes. Knapp and P<strong>of</strong>f (2001) showedthat students taking part in a one-day visit to a USForest Service site forgot most <strong>of</strong> what they hadlearned within four weeks <strong>of</strong> the trip. However, thevisit had a strong positive impact on students’attitudes toward the site.Nundy (1999b and 2001) in a study discussed above,explored the relationship between the affective andthe cognitive domains amongst a group <strong>of</strong> 10-11 yearoldstudents participating in a residential fieldworkcourse in the south <strong>of</strong> England. Nundy concluded thatgains in one domain reinforce gains in the other.Forest School, an educational initiative whichoriginated in Scandinavia in the 1950s, was brought tothe UK in 1995. The Forest School approach involves arange <strong>of</strong> activities taught in the forest as well as in theclassroom, for example: building structures; learningsafety routines; making objects; games; smallachievable tasks and co-operative tasks (NEF, 2004, p.36). A pilot evaluation <strong>of</strong> two Welsh Forest Schoolsinvolved children who were ‘thought to beparticularly vulnerable, demonstrated nuisancebehaviour or were thought to be at risk <strong>of</strong> “droppingout” <strong>of</strong> the education system (ibid., p. 7). Studentsaged 5-9 and 9-11 took part in the scheme for eitherhalf a day per week for a term or in a mixture <strong>of</strong> dayand half-day sessions combined with threeconsecutive days at a summer school plus regularsessions in school during the Autumn Term. Childrenwho took part in the activities showed ‘positiveoutcomes that relate to their motivation, pride in, andunderstanding <strong>of</strong> their surroundings’ (ibid., p. 5). Itshould be stated, however, that the evidence providedfor the various outcomes is somewhat brief andanecdotal (see, for example, ibid., pp. 16-20).Uzzell and colleagues sound a note <strong>of</strong> caution aboutmaking too many assumptions about the relativepermanency <strong>of</strong> attitudinal changes (Uzzell et al., 1995;Uzzell, 1999). The <strong>research</strong>ers report on aninvestigation into what it is that children learn from ahands-on experiential encounter with theenvironment. In examining young people’sperceptions <strong>of</strong> the severity <strong>of</strong> environmental problemsat both local and global levels, they studied femaleYear 10 students’ views about environmentalproblems at the ‘You’, ‘Town’, ‘Britain’ and ‘World’levels. Groups <strong>of</strong> students were asked about theirperceptions before a field visit, just after it and sixweeks after. At first, children were more concernedabout problems at a global level than at a local level.Afterwards there was an increase in perceivedseverity but after 6 weeks the levels went back tobelow the original concerns. The point that the studieshighlight is that environmental attitudes are fairlywell entrenched: ‘What they learn …both in theclassroom and in the field, only serves to strengthentheir views and perhaps heighten their sense <strong>of</strong> actionparalysis’ (Uzzell et al., 1995, p. 177).4.4Social/interpersonal impactsCommenting on the lack <strong>of</strong> coherence betweenpurpose and outcome in environmental sciencefieldwork in the early 1980s, Wilby (1984) stated that‘It is as if our intentions were academic and examorientated, whereas the outcomes are pupil-centred,related to personal and social development’ (p. 13).22 >>> A <strong>review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>research</strong> on outdoor learning