Search

As Australia heads into a new era of implementing a National Curriculum, the place of Outdoor Education in Australian schools is under question. In the initial drafts of the National Curriculum, Outdoor Education has been marginalised. The authors propose that Outdoor Education should maintain a strong role, especially as processes of experiential learning are applied across the curriculum. Moreover, Outdoor Education offers distinctive content and learning experiences that would be lost in the current draft framework. This paper considers the role and place of Outdoor Education in the National Curriculum and frames possible considerations, challenges and risks.

The Australian Council for Health, Physical Education and Recreation (ACHPER) includes Outdoor Education (OE) as a component of Physical Education (PE). Yet Outdoor Education is clearly thought of by many as a discrete discipline separate from Physical Education. Outdoor Education has a body of knowledge that differs from that of Physical Education. This in turn has mandated that OE teachers be trained differently to PE teachers. Some teacher registration boards acknowledge this. Most importantly, the socio-cultural imperatives that are shaping the contributions of Physical Education in schools differ from those of Outdoor Education. In this paper we examine the differences between Outdoor Education and Physical Education. We argue that an inclusion of Outdoor Education as a component of Physical Education is misleading and demonstrates a lack of contemporary understanding of the distinctive contributions made by these two separate disciplines to education. In light of Physical Education's inclusion in the Australian National Curriculum, clarity of the respective contributions of PE and OE is even more compelling. Clarifying the respective roles of PE and OE will ultimately benefit curriculum planners, teachers, students and the wider community. (Contains 1 figure.)

Outdoor education is not a universal value. Rather, outdoor education's contributions need to be grounded in time, place and culture. In this paper we describe the historical and cultural milieu that has enabled the emergence of outdoor education in Singapore and report on exploratory survey research into Singaporean teachers' conceptions of outdoor education. We compare the reported outcomes of outdoor education in Singapore to similar studies from Australia and New Zealand. Further focus group research is then used to develop a vision for outdoor education in Singapore. In so doing we aim to illustrate, and celebrate, how culturally-specific circumstances must be considered in both interpreting and conceptualizing outdoor education. We conclude that while personal development outcomes are important for Singaporean outdoor educators, these are developed more for the benefits of society and the State. The future role of outdoor education in Singapore will most probably continue to be linked to ongoing and emerging social and cultural imperatives such as harmony among diverse religious groups and environmental consequences of climate change. (Contains 7 notes and 1 table.)

A key signpost to a profession is clarity of disciplinary knowledge. In this paper I describe the content and outcome of a process to refine the qualification guidelines for outdoor education teachers in Victorian, Australia. The guidelines, developed for the Victorian Institute of Teaching, include both practical skills and disciplinary knowledge. These can help differentiate outdoor education from other areas such as physical education. The practical skill areas that form the basis of the outdoor education teacher guidelines are summarised in the paper. The disciplinary knowledge required of outdoor education teachers includes content such as human interaction with natural environments, activity knowledge, safety and ecological literacy. Ecological literacy has been less often described in past editions of AJOE. In the latter half of the paper I therefore describe, with reference to David Orr (1992, 2004), the value and relevance of ecological literacy for outdoor education. I conclude that ecological literacy could be developed as a key rationale and practice for outdoor education in schooling.

Australia has a state-based educational system. In some of these states, outdoor education exists as part of the formal accredited secondary school curriculum. In this paper I analyse the content of these senior secondary school outdoor courses as a means to help delineate and describe the body of knowledge of outdoor education. I suggest outdoor education's body of knowledge reflected in these courses fall into six different content categories or areas. Only two of these areas, outdoor pursuits knowledge and skill, and journey based knowledge and skill are common to all courses reviewed. The remaining four content categories each provide a pathway to extend outdoor education into the conceptually more rigorous realms of senior schooling. I conclude with reflective comment on these four pathways and the future of outdoor education in senior schooling.

In 2003 John Fien presented an argument for environmental education to encompass deep and wide caring for human and nonhuman nature (Fien, 2003). His philosophical discussion of care outlined work by Nel Noddings (1984; 1992). In this paper I continue that project by indicating how Noddings' work provides signposts for environmental educators to think about their students' relationships with the nonhuman natural world. I argue that one consequence of Noddings' conception of care is that advocacy for considering humans to be a part of nature might be counterproductive to developing a student's capacity to understand a caring relationship with nature. In conclusion I draw on the structure of a care ethic to suggest practical implications for environmental education and the development of a relational self.

Australia is unusual among developed countries both in lacking fleet‐wide vehicle carbon dioxide emission standards and in having a very low takeup of all‐electric vehicles. This paper outlines how fleet‐wide vehicle carbon dioxide emission standards operate and identifies mechanisms by which their absence might lead to a low takeup of electric vehicles in countries such as Australia. Although hard to verify one of those mechanisms in Australia (higher prices charged for all‐electric vehicles), it is easy to verify the unusually low number of models of all‐electric models made available for sale. The paper also outlines Australia's slow 15‐year journey towards standards, pointing to the possible role of political machinations and political caution in delaying their introduction. It identifies one group of employees with much to lose from a rapid uptake of electric vehicles—motor mechanics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]