Search

In aiming to support school-based outdoor learning opportunities, this paper critiques the extent to which Deweyan and neo-Aristotelian theorising is helpful in highlighting how personal growth and practical wisdom gains can be realised. Such critique is necessary, as there are signs of an implementation gap between practice and policy, which is made worse by a lack of conceptual clarity about how educational aspirations can be dependably achieved. Dewey's habit-forming social constructivist emphasis on learning and problem-solving is reviewed and the prospects of a neo-Aristotelian conception of human flourishing, which recognises that virtues are nurtured as moral sensitivities, are then considered. Concerns that Dewey's writings are often vague on how ideas can be operationalised and criticisms that Aristotle's educational thoughts rather over-privilege cognition relative to emotions are also addressed. The article concludes by teasing out suggestions on how Deweyan and neo-Aristotelian ideas on learning might coherently inform curriculum planning and pedagogical practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The new ‘Curriculum for Excellence’ in Scotland outlines a policy vision of a more integrated and holistic form of education; a commitment which offers considerable prospects for increased levels of outdoor learning in schools. With reference to Fullan’s theorizing on achieving educational change, this study investigated four main implementation areas, namely: policy aims, partnerships arrangements, and associated professionalism and sustainability issues. Evidence was collected through a series of 16 semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders at national, local authority, and school level. Despite increased agreement on aims, it was found that improving the frequency and quality of outdoor learning in schools was adversely influenced by the patchwork nature of partnership support at national and local authority levels. This has curtailed the prioritizing of outdoor learning in schools and of teachers being supported when trying to make use of their increased curriculum decision-making responsibilities. Thus, only limited evidence was found of policy-related innovation and considerable evidence of policy stasis. As such, building national capacity is proving difficult. It is concluded that further research on how some atypical schools have managed to develop their programmes offers the best prospects for understanding the complexities of achieving greater levels of outdoor learning. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]