{"id":392,"date":"2016-07-22T14:31:06","date_gmt":"2016-07-22T13:31:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/education\/?p=392"},"modified":"2016-07-22T14:32:08","modified_gmt":"2016-07-22T13:32:08","slug":"learning-outdoors-in-school-grounds","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/education\/2016\/07\/22\/learning-outdoors-in-school-grounds\/","title":{"rendered":"Learning outdoors in school grounds"},"content":{"rendered":"

Perhaps it\u2019s the onset of summer weather, or the fact that the school term feels different after the exams and tests are over, but whatever the reason there has been a renewed interest in learning outdoors recently, as illustrated by a recent Guardian<\/a> feature.\u00a0 On a serious and really critical note what this article demonstrates is the potential for learning outdoors to boost children\u2019s wellbeing.\u00a0 In addition England\u2019s largest outdoor learning project conducted by Plymouth University<\/a> recently revealed that children are more motivated to learn when outside.\u00a0 It is unusual to start an ECLS blog citing research from another university, but the interest generated by this research (as evidenced on twitter) prompted us to publish an evaluation of a particular outdoor learning project conducted by CfLaT on outdoor learning in school grounds.\u00a0 You can access this report here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"1234\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The CfLaT report \u201cCreative Partnerships: Creating purpose, permission and passion for outdoor learning in school grounds\u201d is based on evidence from four primary and first schools in North-East England, Farne Primary School and St Teresa\u2019s Catholic Primary School (both in Newcastle) and Stobhillgate First School and Tweedmouth West First School (both in Northumberland). Each school used the opportunities offered by Creative Partnerships to develop learning experiences in their school grounds during 2010 and 2011. The motivations for initiating the work; the nature of learning; the use of the school environment and the relationships were unique to each school, as were the physical, cognitive and affective outcomes. This blog outlines core themes that emerged across the schools and their outdoor learning activities. \u00a0You can read all about it in the report<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Re-thinking teaching and learning<\/em><\/strong><\/h1>\n

The outdoor learning projects provided an impetus for a reconsideration of the processes of teaching and learning. The Creative Partnerships projects focusing on the outdoor environment certainly offered opportunities for fun and memorable learning experiences, but the impact went deeper than this. Teachers and co-ordinators recognised that they had the chance to develop alternative approaches and to explore alternative perspectives on both pedagogy and the curriculum. One way of understanding this is through the distinction between convergent and divergent teaching. Much of the teaching and learning developed through these case study projects could be described as divergent. Divergent teaching is contingent and cannot be planned fully in advance. It does not rely on a \u2018script\u2019, but instead requires a degree of risk taking and thinking on one\u2019s feet. In these examples it was clear that teaching staff and creative practitioners had responded to the pupils\u2019 interests and actions. The collaborative relationship between teachers and creative practitioners supported this; allowing more child initiated learning and an approach which encouraged experiential learning.<\/p>\n

In September 2001, Estyn (the Welsh equivalent to Ofsted) produced an evaluation report on the national foundation stage initiative for greater outdoor learning. Like the more recent Plymouth University report Estyn\u2019s findings had resonance for us. For example Estyn stated that, \u2018In most cases, children benefit from their time outdoors. They display high levels of engagement and enjoyment and their knowledge and understanding of the world and physical development improve. A majority of practitioners also say that children\u2019s behaviour, physical fitness and stamina improve\u2019 (Estyn, 2011, p5). The Estyn report recognises that opportunities to enhance learning outcomes linked to creativity had not been fully realised in their sample of outdoor learning, and the four Creative Partnership schools provided illustrative examples of how this might be achieved.<\/p>\n

\"21313\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Lawrence Stenhouse (1975) was unequivocal in rejecting a view of teaching and learning which stated that the only way to organize the curriculum was to divide teaching programmes into pre-specified outcomes in terms of measurable changes in student behaviour. He argued for the transformation of the teacher\u2013pupil relationship.\u00a0 In such a transformation there has to be a redrawing of roles, responsibilities and power implying a less authoritarian structure.\u00a0 Such a transition can be recognised in the four case study schools,\u00a0 with the introduction of creative practitioners as \u2018experts\u2019 and evidence of teachers learning skills alongside pupils, of pupils learning from pupils and opportunities for family involvement in learning activities.\u00a0\u00a0 There was also evidence that teachers welcomed the opportunities for their pupils to surprise them, and celebrated both the intended and unintended learning outcomes and consequences.<\/p>\n

Teacher development and learning <\/em><\/strong><\/h1>\n

The same could be said of the development of teaching staff.\u00a0 In each case the co-ordinators were able to identify tangible, but not always planned for, staff development outcomes.\u00a0 The teachers themselves had overcome some of their anxieties about \u2018letting go\u2019 and enjoyed the chance to work across year groups, to take alternative roles in supporting and engaging in learning, and to draw on the expertise of practitioners who reciprocated by drawing out their expertise as teachers. Traditionally schools and teachers find change difficult (Tyack & Cuban, 1995, Leat, 1999) especially in the direction of more innovative pedagogies.\u00a0 Substantial pedagogic innovation usually requires some behavioural change in teaching and therefore also changes in thinking and in beliefs about pupils, learning or teaching \u2013 and perhaps all three.\u00a0 There is good evidence that the Creative Partnerships projects created the space and permission for some of these changes to start to occur.\u00a0 In this environment teachers and pupils responded positively to what they recognised as more fluid teaching approaches, often driven by the \u2018natural\u2019 processes adopted by practitioners based on craft skills, experimentation, or exploration of ideas, environments and techniques.\u00a0 Leadership, effective co-ordination and permissions were all critical.\u00a0 This was also a conclusion reached by Estyn (2001) who found that the \u2018vision of leaders and their commitment to making the best use of outdoor learning are key factors\u2019 (p5).\u00a0 Where scepticism of the value of outdoor learning was found in the Welsh sample the outdoor environment was not used well enough.\u00a0 One of the significant characteristics of the Creative Partnerships sample in this report was that such scepticism (if it had existed) had been largely overcome and thus real progress was made in developing appropriate teaching and learning in the enhanced outdoor areas of each school.<\/p>\n

In Timperley et al.\u2019s (2007) \u2018best evidence synthesis\u2019 study of effective professional development (as measured by student outcomes), one of the most important factors implicated in teacher learning was the challenge to the existing beliefs that are embedded in the everyday discourse of some schools, usually that certain groups of students could not learn as well as other groups.\u00a0 There was evidence from the schools that transferring learning to the outdoor environment, and taking alternative approaches to planning, enacting and valuing learning had allowed some teachers\u2019 assumptions to be challenged.\u00a0 In this environment each school had evolved as a community; with new elements of school improvement planning being developed and plans being made for further innovative approaches. The experience of Creative Partnership projects had helped each school to recognise that the value in innovation is not simply in adopting one new approach after another.\u00a0 They have learned that they can enrich the curriculum through exploiting multiple opportunities for learning, extending relationships for learning and recognising a very wide range of outcomes of learning.<\/p>\n

Written by Lucy Tiplady<\/a>,\u00a0CfLaT Research Associate, Newcastle University and
\nDr Rachel Lofthouse<\/a>,\u00a0Head of Education, Newcastle University.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

References:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Estyn (2011) Outdoor learning: an evaluation of learning in the outdoors for children under five in the Foundation Phase \u2013 September 2011<\/p>\n

Stenhouse, L. (1975) An Introduction to curriculum research and development<\/em>, London: Heinneman.<\/p>\n

Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H. and\u00a0 Fung, I. (2007) Teacher Professional Development and Learning, Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration (BES), Auckland: Ministry of Education.<\/p>\n

Tiplady, L. & Lofthouse, R. (2011) Creative Partnerships: Creating purpose, permission and passion for outdoor learning in school grounds. Research Centre for Learning and Teaching, Newcastle University, UK.<\/p>\n

Tyack, D. & Cuban, L. (1995) Tinkering towards Utopia,<\/em> Harvard: Harvard University Press.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Perhaps it\u2019s the onset of summer weather, or the fact that the school term feels different after the exams and tests are over, but whatever the reason there has been a renewed interest in learning outdoors recently, as illustrated by … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1135,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,9,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-392","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-learning","category-teaching","category-uncategorised"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/education\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/392","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/education\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/education\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/education\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1135"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/education\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=392"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/education\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/392\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":398,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/education\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/392\/revisions\/398"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/education\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=392"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/education\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=392"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ncl.ac.uk\/education\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=392"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}