{"id":6387,"date":"2015-07-13T07:21:11","date_gmt":"2015-07-13T07:21:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/?p=6387"},"modified":"2015-07-13T07:21:11","modified_gmt":"2015-07-13T07:21:11","slug":"it-may-be-near-n-far-but-what-is-outdoor-learning","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/2015\/07\/13\/it-may-be-near-n-far-but-what-is-outdoor-learning\/","title":{"rendered":"It may be near 'n' far \u2013 but what is 'outdoor learning'?"},"content":{"rendered":"

I can't remember whether I asked the\u00a0question of myself during the recent near 'n' far<\/a> conference presentation by the team from Natural Connections<\/a>, or whether they asked it themselves. \u00a0Sadly, my notes are rather unconnected\u00a0on that point. \u00a0It's a good question, either way.<\/p>\n

Their answer seemed to be\u00a0that it's [i] learning [in the] outdoors, or [ii] learning about the outdoors. \u00a0For many (but not all), of course, the outdoors = nature. \u00a0For others, it's just \"outside\". \u00a0Confused? \u00a0You should be.<\/p>\n

As conceptualisations go, this rough and ready approach leaves much to be desired, particularly as you can (if you're determined) learn about the outdoors, indoors<\/em> \u2013 all my school geography was like this \u2013 and you can learn about anything (solving partial differential equations, for example), outdoors\u00a0<\/em>(think of Forest Schools \u2013 not that they do much about differential equations, but they could \u2013 <\/em>given the right reforms).<\/p>\n

All this harks back to the about \/ in \/ for<\/em> triptych of classic environmental education \u2013 though without the 'for', and so\u00a0misses something of the point if you're interested in nature. \u00a0I'm all for requisite vagary at the right time, as it leaves room for creativity and exploration, but surely we can do better than this conceptual morass.<\/p>\n

The Natural Connections folk said that outdoor learning\u00a0is good for everyone (which reminded me of Milo Minderbinder in Catch 22<\/em>), and that Natural Connections itself was proving a great success (which reminded me of Milo's Syndicate,\u00a0in the same book). \u00a0But all this is good to know.<\/p>\n

Natural Connections now has\u00a0zillions of schools involved, many of which are beacons to others \u2013 and to other beacons, of course. \u00a0The\u00a0Holy Grail<\/em>, which apparently is\u00a0the convincing demonstrate of a correlation\u00a0between outdoor learning and 'attainment',\u00a0is, like the real thing, proving hard to find. \u00a0No wonder, as it surely doesn't exist in any absolute sense.<\/p>\n

But what did they\u00a0mean by 'attainment'? \u00a0My bet is that it just means good GCSE grades, or (inside the DfE at any rate) good PISA scores.<\/p>\n

This brings me neatly (as seques go) to Susanna Ho's presentation about outdoor learning in Singapore. \u00a0Suzanna gave us a brief history of\u00a0outdoor learning in that city state:<\/p>\n