A review of research on outdoor learning - Field Studies Council

• changes in secondary school science syllabusrequirements meaning that ‘coursework andindividual investigations now take precedence[over] developing a sense <strong>of</strong> place’ (Barker et al.,2002, p. 7)• the growth <strong>of</strong> institution-wide timetablingarrangements and modular courses in UKuniversities meaning that ‘opportunities for fieldexcursions in the local area’ are more limited (Clark,1997, p. 390).Alongside curriculum constraints are difficulties due toshortages <strong>of</strong> time, resources and support for outdoorlearning. Harris’ (1999) survey <strong>of</strong> 65 secondaryschool/teachers in the south <strong>of</strong> England noted ‘a lack <strong>of</strong>time and a lack <strong>of</strong> money’ as the top two obstacles tooutdoor education (p. 8). In Australia, Michie (1998, p.48) reports that ‘time and effort on the part <strong>of</strong> theteacher were <strong>of</strong>ten seen as negative factors’ associatedwith organising and undertaking fieldwork. Tasks suchas visiting venues, contacting resource people,preparing resource materials, organising relief lessons,collecting students’ money and using one’s out-<strong>of</strong>schooltime were all noted as difficulties. Another issueraised by the secondary school science teachers inMichie’s (1998) study was transportation.Class sizes in junior secondary science were generallygreater than the size <strong>of</strong> the group that could be transportedwith a small bus … Bigger buses are not only moreexpensive to buy and maintain, but also they requiredifferent licensing arrangements. (p. 47)The same issue is reported as a difficulty forundertaking farm visits (Groundwork, 2002b). Therecent Growing Schools evaluation, for example,highlighted a number <strong>of</strong> barriers relating to fundraising, transportation, and costs to parents (Scott etal., 2003). Likewise, Fisher (2001), writing about<strong>research</strong> into fieldwork in science based on interviewswith teachers and administrators in 30 secondaryschools in south-west England, noted that:For students aged 11-16 years, structured scientificfieldwork away from the school grounds may now be rare.For students aged 16-18 years … fieldwork has becomeregarded as a luxury and is usually limited to the minimumrequired by the examination scheme and to the extentstudents can fund these activities themselves. (p. 76)Even with outdoor learning on the school site, thequestion <strong>of</strong> resources in terms <strong>of</strong> the availability <strong>of</strong>well-designed facilities and curriculum-resourcematerials remains a challenge for many secondaryschools. As noted by Titman (1999), ‘other thanprovision for sports, there was little evidence <strong>of</strong> schoolgrounds having been designed initially to support theformal, informal and hidden curriculum’ (p. 8). A keyissue in this study, though, was the support orotherwise <strong>of</strong> the school senior management team.Schools which had made most use <strong>of</strong> sites correlated in themain with those where the head was actively involved inand committed to the concept. In these schools the groundshad status and pr<strong>of</strong>ile. On a practical level interestedheadteachers are also more likely to facilitate use throughmanagement structures, for example by creating a specialresponsibility post/allowance. (p. 10)Related to this are schools’ and teachers’ philosophies<strong>of</strong> learning and the extent to which these incorporatea conception <strong>of</strong> learning as an indoor and outdooractivity. As Malone and Tranter (2003b) found in theirstudy <strong>of</strong> Australian primary schools:The school ground design, although instrumental in thepotential for extending curricula, is not as vital as having aview <strong>of</strong> learning that does not distinguish between theindoor-outdoor environments. (p. 299)Finally, outdoor education is subject to wider changeswithin the education sector and beyond, and this canbe another area <strong>of</strong> challenge. This is well illustrated bythe fate <strong>of</strong> fieldwork within UK university degreecourses over the last decade. Clark (1997) highlights anumber <strong>of</strong> ways in which the purpose and role <strong>of</strong>geography fieldwork have been affected by ‘theemergence <strong>of</strong> a new higher education system’. Hedraws attention to the impact <strong>of</strong> changing:• student/staff numbers – ‘rising student numbersand student/staff ratios mean that staffing levels onfieldwork have fallen [and] staff-led small-groupteaching is <strong>of</strong>ten no longer practicable’• course structures – ‘it is difficult to specify learningobjectives, and to devise realistic and fair methods<strong>of</strong> assessing fieldwork, when students are drawnfrom a wide range <strong>of</strong> backgrounds and may bestudying varying amounts <strong>of</strong> geography withinloosely-knit modular degree schemes’44 >>> A <strong>review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>research</strong> on outdoor learning