A review of research on outdoor learning - Field Studies Council

More documents

Recommendations

Info

eak/lunchtime’ (p. 30). Similarly, the Learningthrough Landscapes’ (2003) survey <strong>of</strong> 91 schoolswhich had undertaken grounds improvements,reported that 94 per cent <strong>of</strong> students enjoyed and hadfun on their newly improved school grounds, whilst60 per cent <strong>of</strong> teachers believed the grounds hadimproved attitudes towards learning. Looking atattitudes more broadly, Eden (1998) reported that theschool farms she observed were beneficial inproviding psychological/spiritual growth for thestudents. Each school used their farm to foster astronger work ethic amongst the students.Several <strong>research</strong> studies have provided evidence <strong>of</strong>improved environmental attitudes as a result <strong>of</strong>school grounds projects. Alexander et al. (1995)showed that school gardening helped to foster agreater respect for living things. In a study as part <strong>of</strong> amasters degree at the Dominican University <strong>of</strong>California, Brynjegard (2001) explored three cases <strong>of</strong>the uses and impacts <strong>of</strong> school gardens at threedifferent schools using interviews and ethnographicobservations. She found that, at all three schools, thestudents exhibited a great amount <strong>of</strong> pride towardtheir garden and a desire to take care <strong>of</strong> the gardenand treat it with tenderness. The students wereknowledgeable about native plants and different foodareas. All three school gardens stimulated positivefeelings within the students towards their educationalexperience and to nature.Skelly and Zajicek (1998) compared the environmentalattitudes <strong>of</strong> students that had participated in a schoolgardening project (n=153) with those that had onlyexperienced traditional classroom instruction (n=84).They concluded that students participating in thegardening project had higher positive environmentalattitudes than the control group. Groundwork (2002a)demonstrated that students participating in theirprojects developed greater ‘real-life’ awareness <strong>of</strong>environmental issues and practical solutions towardsolving them (see also Randall and Whitaker, 2002; andCooke et al, 2003). Finally, Shapiro (1995) reported thatinvolvement in community restoration projectsresulted in impacts on students’ attitudes in terms <strong>of</strong> ‘asense <strong>of</strong> dignity and belonging, a tolerance for diversityand a sustainable ecological sensibility’ (p. 225).6.4 Social/interpersonal impactsReported impacts <strong>of</strong> educational experiences on thesocial/interpersonal domain include theenhancement <strong>of</strong> relationships between pupils either atplay or through teamwork, and stronger linksbetween the school and the wider community.Four <strong>research</strong> studies focused on the links betweenschool grounds and the quality <strong>of</strong> children’s play.Dyment (2004) commented on the potential <strong>of</strong> greenschool grounds to enhance social/behaviouraldevelopment. She discussed the specific values <strong>of</strong>green school ground space for the development <strong>of</strong>pre-school children in two studies in particular(Moore, 1986; Huttenmoser, 1995). Moore (1986)observed that pre-school-age children in well-definedchildcare settings were engaged in more exploratorybehaviour and more positive social interactionsthrough their play. Huttenmoser (1995) comparedsocial behaviours between two groups <strong>of</strong> five year oldchildren in Switzerland. Children that were allowedunaccompanied outdoor access were reported havingtwice as many friends as those living in places withrestricted outdoor access.Bilton (1993) described outdoor play for pre-schoolchildren as providing the ‘foundation <strong>of</strong> nurseryprovision concerning physical development,imaginative play, linguistic and social development,explorations <strong>of</strong> the natural world’ (p. 17). In a study <strong>of</strong>a long-term project in a primary school in Berkeley,California, Moore and Wong (1997) demonstrated theimpact <strong>of</strong> redesigning the school grounds onchildren’s play and social behaviours. Part <strong>of</strong> theasphalt school grounds were transformed into naturalfeatures such as woodland, gardens and ponds. Thesetransformations led to children developing morepositive relationships with each other in these naturalareas and exhibiting more creative play and learningactivity. It was concluded that well-designed schoolgrounds provided opportunities for young people tosocialise with each other and facilitate positive interpersonalrelations.Malone and Tranter (2003b) conducted a qualitativestudy <strong>of</strong> primary school grounds in Melbourne and38 >>> A <strong>review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>research</strong> on outdoor learning
Canberra, Australia. Aimed at informing schools <strong>of</strong>ways to better design and utilise school grounds toimprove children’s environmental learning, this<strong>research</strong> focused on samples <strong>of</strong> ten children, fromyears three/four, at each <strong>of</strong> the five schools studied. Itused systematic observational and mappingtechniques to identify children’s behaviours, as wellas interviews and structured observations <strong>of</strong>children’s use <strong>of</strong> the school grounds in order toidentify patterns that indicated the nature <strong>of</strong> learning.The study found that some types <strong>of</strong> play behaviourwere more prevalent in particular schools, and thatthis was related to (i) the value placed by the schoolon environmental learning as an important outcome<strong>of</strong> children’s play, and (ii) the nature <strong>of</strong> the outdoorsetting.Two studies have looked at improvements inteamwork and co-operation skills. Studentsparticipating in the SARP work (Rickinson et al., 2003aand b) developed skills that were transferable to arange <strong>of</strong> subjects. Examples reported by staff andstudents included gaining first-hand experience <strong>of</strong>processes <strong>of</strong> consultation, teamwork, and groupdecision-making. Similarly, Australian studentsinvolved in the Learnscapes project planning groupdeveloped better co-operative skills, becoming moreunified as a group and reaching a consensus (Skampand Bergmann, 2001). They also demonstrated betterlateral thinking in considering practicalities inplanning. However, some students felt Learnscapesbelonged to the classes that developed them and theyresented sharing the end product with others.Teachers stressed student negativity associated withrepetitive uses <strong>of</strong> Learnscapes across primary gradesand secondary school subjects.Another dimension <strong>of</strong> social/interpersonal impactsassociated with school grounds/community projectsis improved connection between schools and theircommunities. In <strong>review</strong>ing the literature, Evergreen(2000) cites evidence suggesting that a school benefitswhen:school grounds are shared spaces, they become physicalconnection zones, places for overlap between communityand school … when projects work they <strong>of</strong>ten involveparents, experts, and/or volunteers from the localcommunity. (p. 14)Evergreen (2000) noted that using school grounds thatare designed to maximise learning can lead to areduction in anti-social behaviour, better connectionsto community and an increased pride in school. Thecommunity as a whole can benefit as a stronger sense<strong>of</strong> community might is established, there is anincrease in community satisfaction, stronger socialcapital networking, improvements in communityhealth, better and more active involvement byparents, improvements in the natural environmentand possible financial earnings and savings.The Learnscapes project (Skamp and Bergmann, 2001)demonstrated an attraction and greater involvement<strong>of</strong> the community outside the walls <strong>of</strong> the school:Parents are recognising that different teachers havedifferent styles <strong>of</strong> teaching and learning and parents willsay – ‘oh I hope my child gets to spend at least a year in…class’ or ‘I hope my child gets to spend at least a year in …class’ because <strong>of</strong> the way that – the way they use … parentsdon’t necessarily call them Learnscapes … features <strong>of</strong> theschool that help with their children’s learning. (Primaryprincipal). (p. 6)Five <strong>research</strong> studies looking at the value <strong>of</strong> schoolgardens and farms demonstrated links between thecommunity and school. Poulsen (1992) found that aschool farm also brought the community togetherthrough a more active involvement <strong>of</strong> the students’parents. The school garden constructed at a primaryschool in Westminster, Vermont became a communityresource (Canaris 1995). The aim <strong>of</strong> the school gardenevolved from a focus on developing nutritionalawareness toward much deeper and more meaningfullearning experiences. The teachers and students beganthe construction <strong>of</strong> the school garden with parents andolder adult volunteers joining in and continuing tomaintain the garden. The community involvementwas essential to the development <strong>of</strong> the garden andhelped to stimulate the children to interact andincrease their communication skills.Alexander et al. (1995) demonstrated that schoolgardening increased positive interactions with parentsand other adults, resulting in increased parentalenthusiasm, the initiation <strong>of</strong> gardening at home, and adeveloping sense <strong>of</strong> belonging to a larger community.The impact <strong>of</strong> school grounds/ community projects
Page 1: March 2004Mark Rickinson, Justin Di
Page 4 and 5: AcknowledgementsThe researc
Page 7 and 8: Executive summaryIntroductionThere
Page 9 and 10: evised National Curriculum in 2000;
Page 11 and 12: 1. IntroductionThis chapter explain
Page 13 and 14: centres dedicated to ‘bringing en
Page 15 and 16: secondary schools are required to m
Page 17 and 18: 2. Conceptual overviewThis chapter
Page 19 and 20: • a number of <s
Page 21 and 22: 3.3 Review processesIndividual <str
Page 23 and 24: specifically recall field trips tak
Page 25 and 26: He also noted that ‘there is cert
Page 27 and 28: 5. The impact ofou
Page 29 and 30: Keighley (1997) reported a similar
Page 31 and 32: consistent. On the one hand, there
Page 33 and 34: In particular, there were five stud
Page 35 and 36: 6. The impact ofsc
Page 37 and 38: a teacher moves to enhance the hidd
Page 39: 6.3 Affective impactsThere are a ra
Page 43 and 44: 6.6 SummaryThe research</st
Page 45 and 46: Another major challenge is teachers
Page 47 and 48: • timetabling - ‘institution-wi
Page 49 and 50: ‘the length of t
Page 51 and 52: Participant factorsThere is growing
Page 53 and 54: on young people’s perceptions <st
Page 55 and 56: of the extent to w
Page 57 and 58: • To what extent do such policies
Page 59 and 60: Blind SpotsBy their nature, blind s
Page 61 and 62: Internet web sitesrelating to outdo
Page 63 and 64: ERICERIC is sponsored by the United
Page 65 and 66: ReferencesADVENTURE ACTIVITIES LICE
Page 67 and 68: DONALDSON, G.W. and DONALDSON, L.E.
Page 69 and 70: NEILL, J.T. and RICHARDS, G.E. (199
Page 72: E N G L I S HOUTDOORCOUNCILPublishe

A review of research on outdoor learning - Field Studies Council

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?