Action Research in Outdoor Education: facilitating the impact of environmental and nature experiences during mountain walking / expeditions
Nicola Taylor
Introduction
Research Question
‘What impact will facilitating environmental and nature experiences have on Outdoor Education students during a mountain walking/ expedition module?’
Three years ago I made a transition from mainly teaching Sport Science to teaching within the Outdoor Education courses. The majority of my involvement has been on the practical land based activities where my personal competencies and strengths lie. The land based activities include climbing, orienteering and mountain walking/ navigation/ expedition skills. It was on the delivery of the mountain walking module that I experienced how it had previously been delivered, and its focus on the technical skills of expeditions and navigation. For the most part, the module was focussed on navigation, camp craft, leadership, emergency procedures and first aid scenarios. Although local story telling on myths and legends was encouraged, I still felt, through my experiences on several expeditions, that something else was missing. I would notice that some students were so involved in their navigation and map that they hardly noticed the buzzard circling above their heads or failed to take time to study the flowers and wild life the area had to offer.
Therefore, as an action research project I aim to introduce an element of environmental education into the module this year. I hope to facilitate an awareness of nature and an appreciation of nature that goes beyond simply identifying species. Within the program I aim to avoid teaching environmental knowledge to the students in a contrived manner, but to facilitate experiences that are student led.
As a Lecturer whom is possibly educating the leaders of tomorrow, I feel a strong sense of responsibility to encourage environmental awareness. To ensure students develop a connection with nature and an awareness of what is all around them. An appreciation of how wonderful nature is and how we all have responsibilities to ensure we practice sustainable activities for future generations. To ingrain that we are all part of the planet and not separate from it, therefore, introducing elements of ‘deep ecology’ to the experience.
The main aim will be to introduce elements of environmental education into a mountain walking module and evaluate the impact on Outdoor Education students. I intend on facilitating experiences that aim to bring students closer to nature, raise environmental awareness of students, introduce ‘deep ecology’ and create a holistic learning experience.
To achieve these aims action research, a series of cyclical processes of planning, action, observation and reflection, was employed (Kemmis and McTaggart, 2000).
Review of Literature
Outdoor Education is generally regarded as an approach as opposed to a subject (Hunt, 1989), one conception of outdoor education has it located in the relationship of individuals with the environment (Higgins, 2003).
To enhance the human relationship with the environment is often a stated aim of outdoor education. Early work of Mortlock (1984) states that an important aim of the outdoor philosophy must be to develop a respect for the environment and for humans to realise that they are part of nature, not separate from it. Mortlock (1984) advocated that the vital aspect was not the activity but the experience and individuals relationship with the natural environment. Drasdo (1973) also remarked that through outdoor education “more profound and experimental approaches might be attempted, starting with the widest possible freedom of choice and allowing time for reflection about nature and man.” Drasdo (1973) introduced an aesthetic dimension challenging contemporaries to rethink relationships with the environment and natural world. Frequently, outdoor education has used environmental education as a way to justify its importance and existence as an important part of the curriculum along with personal and social development.
Many argue that the present practice of outdoor education has little to do with forming relationships and respect for the environment in which we practice. Environmental educators have tended to see outdoor education as simply education in the environment, not particularly for or about the environment (Gough, 2007). There is also evidence that many providers of outdoor adventure are actually leaving behind many values that gave rise to the field (Loynes, 1998) such as those ideals set out by Mortlock (1984) and Drasdo (1973). Loynes (1988) and Higgins (2003) express their concerns on present outdoor education practices and what the future may hold.
There is some concern that outdoor education is becoming consumer led, fast hitting, high adrenaline experiences that are ego- centric (Loynes, 1998). Higgins (2003) concurs, highlighting the transition that outdoor education has made form broad and relatively unstructured experiences to highly focussed, processed and recreational experiences. Additionally, award schemes and certification has also had an impact on the way outdoor education is delivered, being more technical and skills orientated. Some view that this has killed the holistic experiences of journeys and unstructured time just being in nature (Loynes, 1998).
In both the UK and Australia some have sought to raise the profile of outdoor education by forging stronger ties with environmental education. Fox (1995) discusses how sociological and ecological perspectives must be brought alongside psychological perspectives of self. The importance of the individual to understand nature and to see life from nature’s point of view is stressed throughout various papers (Higgin, 2003; Nicol, 2003; Loynes, 1998; Brookes, 1993; Naess, 1989) as a way to re-connect and form respect and care for the environment. Naess (1989) posits that human beings have been separated and act independently from the natural world, this philosophical position is termed ‘cartesian dualism’.
The philosophical position of Cartesian dualism is responsible for separating the knower from the known, the thinking subject from the non thinking object, people from place and ultimately, the human from the non human. (Nicol, 2003)
Nicol (2003) states that it is invisibility which allow people to live in ignorance or denial that there is a planetary emergency. It is this separation which must be reconnected, it should be the next educational challenge and outdoor education is ideally situated for facilitating change. The challenge for Outdoor Education is for the realisation that human beings have dependence on the natural world for survival and actions must take place towards sustainable living (Nicol, 2003).
However, tensions do exist between adventure and environmental education, sometimes perceived as one using the other to gain ego-centric fulfilment. Adventure can be perceived as uncertainty and challenge and often pitting ourselves against the environment in many forms. At best it provides the backdrop to the activity and at worst we are in competition with the environment (Cooper, 1998). Do we really have the right to preach minimal impact philosophies when many practitioners struggle to justify using the environment for the activity altogether? How can practitioners prevent the ego-centric buzz taking over outdoor education and develop an awareness and interest of environmental issues and re-connect with nature? Cooper (1991) observed that the potential for outdoor education to contribute to environmental education is enormous yet he maintains its influence on raising environmental awareness has been limited. It remains a challenge to assess the most effective way environmental studies can be integrated into outdoor education and yet, remain appealing to students.
The benefit of using outdoor activities is that they can provide an initial excuse to spend time in nature, also providing motivation for deeper ongoing relationships with nature.
Adventure activities are a powerful medium to elicit emotional connections to the natural world. Adventure induces an emotional response, but also draws people to wild places that play their own role in eliciting emotional reactions from participants. Deskilling outdoor education… carries an inherent risk of de- stabilizing the longstanding attractiveness of outdoor education processes for some students, and may even work against improved relationships with the natural world. (Martin, 2004)
It is important to realise that Martin’s research does not suggest that adventurous activities are essential for all participants to develop relationships with nature (Thomas, 2004). Different ways of knowing may mean for some individuals being creative through writing poetry or drawing may facilitate the connection with nature. Preston’s (2004) collaborative action research revealed how responsive students were in forming a relationship with nature through different ways of knowing. The holistic approach taken on knowing a place intimately and in an unstructured exploratory way facilitated the students in connecting with the land and culture of the place.
However, other literature suggests that adventure can induce an emotional response and draws people to develop relationships with nature (Martin, 2004). For some individuals the practical way of knowing will not be as effective as the creative way of knowing, so perhaps it is about maintaining the choice for participants or the way adventurous activities are facilitated.
Being comfortable in an environment and in nature has often been recognised as important when facilitating a connection with nature. Becoming familiar with a place and growing an intimacy with an area enables students to feel more at ease with nature and therefore a relationship was more likely to develop. The solo experience was also recognised as important in heightening ones senses to nature’s wonders (Martin, 2004; Preston, 2004).
Martin’s research, as in the present research project, was carried out with a select group of outdoor education students. Therefore, can we assume that the participants are more likely to prefer a practical engagement with nature in order to develop a relationship? Is it also an assumption that a positive relationship with nature should have already been partially developed during the course? However, even within a group of outdoor education students Martin found differences. Some participants preferred to be engaged in a less adventurous activity when the emphasis of learning was on the environment. Others found that the more intense the activity the more they felt connected to nature (Martin, 2004).
Facilitating environmental awareness through adventurous activities challenges the majority of present practices and in the present research project. Some practitioners may feel uncomfortable implementing environmental knowledge into their sessions. How radical do the changes need to be to have an effect? Cooper (1989) suggested some guidelines on how leaders can facilitate outdoor programs to encourage greater environmental awareness including:
- Recognising links between personal, social and environmental education
- Introducing good environmental practice into the whole organisation not just isolated activities and model that practice as a leader
- Encourage a sense of place, use all the senses, focus on detail, and encourage a personal response through creative means
- Use the close contact with nature, experience in some adventure activities, to foster environmental receptivity
- Raise environmental issues with groups but do so positively in a context of enjoyment, awareness and understanding
- Adopt the concept of journeys rather than quick thrills
- Use reflection and reviewing (even after exciting sessions) astutely to challenge attitude and actions towards the environment
(Cooper, 1998 cited in Thomas, 2004)
Is the above radical enough to justify the acclaimed title of critical education, Brookes (1993) critiques much of Coopers work as having little research evidence to substantiate any claims. However, Martin’s (2004) and Preston (2004) qualitative research did support a number of the key points, encouraging a sense of place and repeated visits to an area apparently nurtured a relationship with nature. Close contact to nature via adventurous activities assisted in fostering an interest in the environment as did journeys that had less emphasis on high technical competencies, additionally, the solo experience enhanced feelings of connection (Martin, 2004) even if the period of time alone with nature was for a relatively small period of time (Preston, 2004). Further to this research, Thomas (2004) commenced an action research project in order to enhance to appeal of environmental content to outdoor education students. The research implied that students were receptive in identifying their own teachable/ learnable moments for environmental education during an adventurous activity day.
Implications surfaced for the practitioners, it was identified that in order to bring about the uniqueness of a place, enough local/ environmental knowledge must be known. Thomas (2004) recognised the paradox of trying to create a serendipitous teaching style that required a high level of planning and local knowledge. However, if the teachable moments are student led and are focussed on their interests they can become learnable moments that are less teacher orientated (Thomas, 2004).
Throughout research, it becomes clear, that experiential knowing through direct contact with nature, to smell, to see, to touch, hear and taste is more effective and has more impact than merely watching a nature program. Furthermore, Preston’s (2004) work highlighted that by delivering environmental facts in a classroom setting is generally ineffective in facilitating a relationship with nature. Concurrent to this, Cooper (1994) suggested that “direct contact with the environment, particularly in challenging situations, can be inspirational and lead to feelings of belonging or oneness with the earth.” Learning through action engagement with aspects that are different and part of who we are is vital. By focusing on habitat ebbs and where humans are in the web of nature can help realise how one can live more fully and sustainable. Increasing the amount of abstracted knowledge about the environment is no substitute for ‘real’ experiences. Contributing to the lack of ecological awareness is the concept that nature and wild places are ‘out there’, as opposed to realising nature on the door step (Cock, ). Classroom education is not useful for integrated study of the natural environment (Nicol, 2003)
Outdoor Education represents a pedagogical endeavour with potential for overcoming these abstractions. Without the physical confines of the classroom, and without its subject disciplines, outdoor education offers a way to counteract Orr’s (1994) concern that “there is a connection between knowledge organised in boxes, and the inability of those minds to perceive the causes of degraded ecologies…” (Nicol, 2003).
Various psychological experiments with young children show that they benefit most form direct experiences that are relevant and compelling, when the experience is lessened so are the educational gains (Donaldson, 1978; cited in Nicol, 2003). Concurrent to this, Davis et al. (2006) studied children in Forest schools where free play and exploration of nature was encouraged, interpersonal and intrapersonal responses to nature and others flourished. However, it also must be recognised that direct experience in itself is not enough to change attitudes or beliefs; it is not enough merely to take participants to wild, natural environments (Brookes, 1993). Brookes (1993) concept of ‘deep outdoor education’ would develop “alternative understandings of nature of knowledge, the role of science, the ways on which nature should be valued, the relationship between individual and the wider community.”
Higgins (2000) raises the issue of students being given the opportunity to develop and discuss values and morals about the world’s environmental problems. This concurs with Nicols (2003) paper on ways of knowing and the holistic approach to learning about sustainable and environmental education.
By advocating a holistic approach that incorporates different ways of knowing, Nicol (2003) posits that the constructivist approach enables the learners to make sense and fully appreciate their experiences. This is also constructed by frequent real visits and experiences in the natural environment.
In the present project, the importance of learning by experiencing and having direct contact with nature concurs with Nicol (2003) and Preston and Griffiths (2004) collaborative action research. It is suggested that experiential knowing through direct contact with nature is more effective than merely reading about nature. Providing powerful encounters with nature has an emotional impact and facilitates connections. Nicol (2003) also discusses the need for a more radical approach to outdoor environmental education that encompasses the ontology of Naess (1989) ‘deep ecology’. Deep ecology strives to “relate philosophical and valuative premises with the concrete aspects of ecological problems” (Naess, 1989). Deep ecology is based on Naess’ ecological ontology which is built on two assumptions; humanity is inseparable from nature and if humanity is deemed to be in some way dependant on nature then it would appear that there is a degree of self interest in protecting nature (Naess, 1989). The hypothesis here is that when people are distanced from nature, both suffers - the earth through environmental damage and people through grief and alienation (Cock, ). Outdoor education is potentially an effective vehicle for initiating a change in attitudes. There is much that outdoor educators can contribute to environmental education, the traditional approaches have made great value but outdoor education can contribute to the development of global awareness and a willingness to take responsibility for individual actions (Nicol and Higgins, 1998). The future of outdoor education therefore, has many challenges ahead if it is to fulfil the vision of contributing effectively to an ‘ecologically aware’ society that accepts responsibility for its actions. The adventure of deep ecology marks the advent of new ideals for sustainable practices in an effective learning environment.
In the present action research project, the reviewed articles will assist in creating environmental experiences that are student led, experiential and valuable. The introduction of these experiences will hopefully have an impact on the students, and myself as a practitioner, I await with anticipation.
Action Research Methodology
The present action research project is positioned within the qualitative research paradigm, within this paradigm it is possible to posit ones approach in terms of ontology and epistemology. Ontology raises questions about ones view on the nature of reality, is it socially constructed or out there waiting to be discovered? Epistemology is interested in the origins and nature of knowing, the construction of knowledge and what can be known? (Allison, 2000) In the following section I will attempt to discuss the present action research project in terms of overarching methodological framework, in this case, participatory action research. I will proceed to critically evaluate action research as a means of qualitative research and address some of the paradigm debates in doing so.
The present research project is participatory action research that is based on ontology that reality is socially constructed. A constructivist approach to epistemology posits that knowledge is considered to be “constructed” through interaction with others, rather than existing as objective truth which can be “discovered” (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). This approach posits that the participants became “co-researchers”, who, together with the researcher, developed an enhanced understanding of their experiences. Within the qualitative, quantitative paradigm debate, action research sits plausibly within the qualitative paradigm. In the current paper I will present an argument for the use of action research as a qualitative interpretive research method.
Action research is considered to be:
A form of collective self reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own social or educational practices, as well as their understanding of those practices and the situations in which the practices are carried out… The approach is only action research of the group is achieved through the critically examined action of individual group members. (Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988)
Action research within education is reflective teaching and can be viewed as an extension of good reflective practice. In the present research project the reasons for undertaking action research are to improve ones own practice. Stenhouse coined the term ‘teacher as researcher’ in 1975, and this served to empower the teacher as researcher, to alter power relationships. The three elements that Stenhouse (1975) proposed were ‘commitment to systematic questioning of ones own teaching/ facilitation as a basis for development, the commitment and the skills to study ones own teaching/ facilitation and the concern to question and to test theory in practice.’ Other reasons include project improvement and political reasons, to increase democracy and justice or rights of the oppressed and alter power relations between researcher and researched. Action research focuses on practical issues in the ‘real world’, it studies practitioners own practice and the collaboration between practitioners and is a cyclical process. It is generally thought to involve a spiral of self reflective cycles of; planning a change, acting and observing the process and consequences of the change, reflecting on these processes and consequences, and then re-planning, acting and observing, reflecting, and so on….(Kemmis and McTaggart, 2000)
In reality, the process may not be as neat as the spiral or self contained cycles of planning, acting and observing, and reflecting suggests. The stages overlap, and initial plans quickly become obsolete in the light of learning from experience. (Kemmis and McTaggart, 2000)
The value of action research is that it can carry out evaluation in a ‘real life’ situation. It aids reflection, self evaluation and confidence in improving practice; it can also provide the evidence to justify change.
Classroom action research typically involves the use of qualitative, interpretive modes of inquiry and data collection by teachers/ practitioners with a view to teachers making judgements about how to improve their own practices. The emphasis is on practical- that is on the interpretations teachers and students are making and acting on in the situation. (Kemmis and McTaggart,1994)
Participatory action research is positioned opposing ends of the research paradigm continuum to the positivist approach. Positivists observe the nature of knowledge as facts and laws that are discovered by objective means and sits within a quantitative paradigm (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). Opposing this, participatory knowledge is gained through practical experiences, critical subjectivity and living knowledge. There has been a distinct turn of the social sciences towards more interpretive, postmodern and criticalist practices and theorizing (Bloland, 1989). “This non positivist orientation has created a context in which virtually no study can go unchallenged by proponents of contending paradigms.” (Lincoln and Guba, 1994) The number of practitioners of new paradigm inquiry is growing and there can be no question that legitimacy of post modern paradigms is well established and equal to the legitimacy of conventional paradigms (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000).
The present participatory action research project combines a constructivist and participatory approach within a qualitative research paradigm. It now seems prudent to critically analyse the present study in its qualitative methodological framework.
Qualitative research was developed in the social sciences to try and understand people and their social/ cultural contexts, it is argued that quantitative methods compromised the richness of social and institutional contexts. In the 1920s and 30s the work of the Chicago school established the importance of qualitative inquiry for the study of human group life (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000).
Qualitative researchers believe that social activity can only be understood as meaningful if it is seen in its full context, quantitative research aims to dissect human and social activity into statistics and quantifiable data. However, early qualitative social research involved observers going to foreign settings to study customs and habits of other societies and cultures and therefore, fully submerging themselves into the society. Qualitative research evolved and was soon employed in other social and behavioural science disciplines including education (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000).
Qualitative research is a situated activity that locates the observer in the world. It consists of a set of interpretive, material practices that make the world visible. These practices transform the world. They turn the world into a series of representations, including field notes, interviews, conversations, photographs, recordings and memos to the self (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000).
Qualitative research involves interpretation and has a naturalistic approach to the world. As in the present action research project, I (the researcher) study the participants in their normal social setting, making interventions and observing, interpreting and making sense using more than one interpretive practice. As the researcher, it is excepted that I will become part of the process and involved in critical cyclical process of self reflection. “Qualitative researchers stress the socially constructed nature of reality, the intimate relationship between the researcher and what is studied, and the situational constraints that shape inquiry.” (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000) Quantitative research differs in many ways that are restricting when trying to measure the complexities and richness of human social interactions. The positivist approach postulates that reality is one and by carefully dividing and studying its parts the whole can be understood. The Knower can stand outside of what is to be known and true objectivity is possible. Quantitative studies emphasise the measurement and analysis of causal relationships between variables, not processes. Proponents of such studies claim that their work is done within a value free framework (Denzin and Lincoln, 2000). Within the present action research, it would be restricting and incomplete to present an accurate picture of participants’ responses and expressions if conducted within a quantitative research paradigm. Without being able to interact with the research group would be to miss an important perspective on inquiry. Being involved in the process is an essential part of critical reflective practice, however, as discussed later in this section, does this count as research?
Quantitative approaches are used to isolate “cause and effects… operationalizing theoretical relations…[and] measuring and .. quantifying phenomena… allowing the generalization of findings.” (Flick, 1998) Within action research generalisations of findings are not made, it is accepted that each action research project is unique to that social situation, this is not to say however, that the reader may recognise and interpret the research for their similar environment and situation.
The use of quantitative, positivist methods has been rejected by a new generation of qualitative researchers who are attached to poststructural and/or postmodern sensibilities. “Inquiry methodology can no longer be treated as a set of universally applicable rules or abstractions.” (Lincoln and Guba, 1994) It would be difficult to miss the distinct turn of the social sciences toward more interpretive, postmodern and criticalist practices and theorizing (Boland, 1989, 1995). Researchers argue that positivist methods are about one restricted way of telling stories about society, in fact it actually may be no better or worse than any other way, but just one method that may not be the correct method for every research inquiry. Many constructivists, critical theorists, post structural and post modern views share the opinion that rejects positivist and postpositivist criteria when evaluating their own work. As in the present action research, positivist and postpositivist approaches are rejected. I argue the case that these criteria are irrelevant to the present research project and place too many constraints on the richness and complexities of the voices that must be heard in their entirety. If traditional positivist methods were implemented too many voices would be silenced. In response to this, positivists would argue that what they do is good science that is free from individual bias and subjectivity. However, action research recognises the subjectivity and bias within its methodology, but in recognising these flaws it gains credibility in not claiming to discover a ‘reality’.
We might predict that, if not in our lifetimes, at some later time the dualistic idea of an objective reality suborned by limited human subjective realities will seem as quaint as flat earth theories do to us today (Lincoln and Guba, 1994).
Questions are raised that need addressing for the legitimacy of action research as a research method. Is action research actually research and is it really about social improvements? (Kemmis and McTaggart, 1994) The ‘action’ element that interpretivists see as meaningful and important outcome is seen by positivists as contamination of research results and processes (Lincoln and Guba, 1994). The involvement that the researcher has within the research group is also criticised and fallible to be regarded as a secure methodological grounding for social research. However, surely only the insider has access to true meaningful inside knowledge, and thus counterpose inside knowledge with the external view (Kemmis and McTaggart, 1994). Action research has been accused of lacking scientific rigour and confusing social activism/ community development with research. Such practices may employ desirable means and serve desirable ends, but should they be confused for research, or as Kemmis and McTaggart (1994) state “...worse still, to disguise or dignify them as research- is a fundamental form of deception and manipulation, in this view.”
Action research involves the interpretation of data, and for some, this is viewed as a flaw, as Winter (1982) wrote:
The action research/ case study tradition does have a methodology for the creation of data, but not (as yet) for the interpretation of data. We are shown how the descriptive journal, the observer’s field notes, and the open ended interview are utilized to create accounts of events which will confront the practitioners current pragmatic assumptions and definitions; we are shown the potential value of this process ( in terms of increasing teachers sensitivity) and the problem it poses for individual and collective professional equilibrium. What we are not shown is how the teacher can or should handle the data thus collected.
(Winter, 1982)
It is argued that the problem with validity can not be side stepped by insisting that the contexts in each action research project are unique. However, in most action research, Kemmis and McTaggart (1994) state that researchers make sacrifices in their methodological and technical rigor, this is in exchange for immediate gains in face validity. Evidence that is collected is directly applicable to the practitioners in their practical setting, surely a credible asset and empowering practitioners. Some researchers view that this tendency towards being low tech makes participatory action research ‘bad’ research, even when it may be ‘good’ in terms of practical contributions to democratic processes. This concern presupposes that what makes research ‘good’ can be determined on grounds of methodology rather than epistemology.
Surely, some loss in methodological sophistication is a price worth paying in most practical contexts of transformative social action.
Participatory research will often be researched by an individual who also has to live with the consequences of the transformations they make, as in the present case, this provides a very concrete ‘reality check’ on the quality of their work. Kemmis and McTaggart (1994) view the practical significance of participatory action research over methodological sophistication.
Classroom action research is practical not just idealistically, however, it is criticised for the prominence it gives to teacher’s knowledge in comparison with other views of what is happening in schools. This prominence given to teacher’s knowledge sometimes can be viewed as, masking the assumption that significant improvements can be accomplished in the absence of broader patterns of community support and social change (Kemmis and Mc Taggart, 1994).
Orlando Falls Borda (1979) viewed action research as investigating reality in order to transform it. Kemmis and McTaggart (1994) rightly add that action research also transforms reality in order to investigate it. The emphasis is on the ‘realties’ of day to day life and work. Changes that are practical and can be carried out to make real differences to practitioners and the working environment. Therefore, concurrent to Kemmis and McTaggart (1994), research should be valued not just on its internal criteria, but on its social practice in terms of the extent to which it contributes to confronting and overcoming social problems, or improving professional practice.
Unfettered from the pursuit of transcendental scientific truth, inquirers are now free to resituate themselves within texts, to reconstruct their relationships with research participants in less constricted fashions, and to create re- presentations (Tierney and Lincoln, 1997) that grapple openly with problems of inscription, re-inscription, meta-narratives, and other rhetorical devices that obscure the extent to which human action is locally and temporally shaped.
Action research is a flexible, situational responsive methodology that offers rigour, authenticity and voice, and therefore lends itself for the purposes in the present study.
Method
The initial interventions were orientated around facilitating an appreciation of the environment and reflecting on their own relationship with nature. The present action research project was conducted over a five week period, however, since I started teaching on the module over two months ago, I had already introduced some elements of environmental study. As the module progressed so did the interventions relating to building relationships and attitudes to nature. During the five week intervention period there were two expeditions that involved overnight camps. The first was to the local Black Mountains and involved a two night wild camp. The second was a five day/ four night camp to North Wales. Both overnight camps were part of the NVQ level 3 BELA training and expeditions, but also involved the student from the level 2 course. The module also included single day visits to local areas around Carmarthenshire, I felt the use of local areas was important to the study to ensure students realised that natural places exist within their everyday worlds (Preston, 2004).
The purpose of the study was to observe what impact facilitating environmental and nature experiences have on Outdoor Education students during the mountain walking/ expedition module. I decided that it would be appropriate to make the experiences student led and in line with the experiential ethos of outdoor education. This is concurrent with Thomas (2004) who suggested that in order to make environmental education appealing for students it must be student centred and not top transmission of knowledge. Preston’s (2004) work also identified that information giving sessions about the environment, with little application to practical outdoor education, was seen by the students as being disconnected and did little to overcome detached relationships with place. The use of local places was an important aspect of the project to ensure connections were made culturally as well as with nature, and to develop a sense of place (Cooper, 1989; Martin, 2004; Nicol, 2003; Preston, 2004). This was also to encourage the students into knowing nature is all around them, not just out there in special places for example; national parks. The journey style was walking and expeditions including wild camps, because the students were also completing the Basic Expedition Leaders Award I had to find a balance between developing their technical skills for navigation and identifying opportunities for discussions and learnable moments about the environment and nature. Careful planning and facilitation ensured that the students weren’t distracted from the whole experience by simply wanting to arrive at their destination. Although often the students were aware of their destination, it was decided that the actual journey was often ‘made up as we went along’.
Cooper (1989) identified some key points that he believed help to facilitate an environmental awareness during and after sessions, these were considered and many adopted for the present study:
- Recognise links between personal, social and environmental education
- ensure good environmental practice in the work place
- encourage a sense of place, use all of the senses, focus on detail and encourage a personal response through creative means
- use the close contact with nature, experience in some adventure activities to foster environmental receptivity
- raise environmental issues with groups but do so positively in a context of enjoyment, awareness and understanding
- adopt the concept of journeys rather than quick thrills
- use reflection and reviewing (even after exciting sessions) astutely to challenge attitude and actions towards the environment
(Cooper, 1998 cited in Thomas, 2004)
Qualitative Action Research: Collection of Data
Participant Observation
I, the researcher, participated in the daily lives of the students on the module, through listening, observing, questioning and understanding the experiences of the individual students concerned. In some cases, researchers may have been involved for months or even years in a community in order to become generally accepted as one of the group and to understand the lives of the individuals. In the present study, I feel I already have a good relationship with the students, having taught them on practical modules for two years. A large portion of the time spent with them has been on various overnight expeditions and residential experiences.
The observations that I made during the activities were recorded in a journal, observations included listening to conversations between students, observing physical behaviour and informal questioning or conversations between myself and the students. The journal entries were focussed on themes that emerged through the action research cycle and identified as central to the research project. Reflection on the journals and participant observation was an important part of critical reflective practice. This process enabled me to identify themes emerging and therefore initiated new ideas.
Semi structured interviews- individual
A two person conversation initiated by the interviewer for the specific purpose of obtaining research relevant information, and focused by him [sic] on content specified by research objectives of systematic description, prediction, or explanation. (Cannell and Kahn, 1968)
Interviewing involves gathering of data through direct verbal interaction between individuals, in the present project the interviews were conducted between myself and the students.
In order to plan and carry out the interviews is was important to identify themes in order to extract the relevant information and thoughts/ feelings of the students. The interviews were recorded and transcribed, the data was then analysed by drawing out on general themes that emerged.
Over the five weeks, two sets of interviews were conducted with four students, each time they were carried out after overnight expedition experiences.
Themes that emerged were also compared to personal journal entries made by participation observation and time was taken to reflect on the interview material.
Group discussions
Focus groups are undoubtedly valuable when in- depth information is needed about how people think about an issue- their reasoning about why things are as they are, why they hold the views they do (Laws, 2003). However, there can be problems. Hayes warn us that: Groups have to be carefully balanced in relation to the age, sex and ethnic status of respondents: for example, if young people, women, or people in ethnic minority groups are in disproportionately fewer numbers in the group they may feel socially constrained and not contribute freely to the discussion. It may sometimes be necessary to have single sex groups in similar age ranges in order for the atmosphere to be permissive and relaxed. (Hayes, 2000)
In the present research project the 8 subjects were all male students between the age of 17- 24, therefore, the discussion groups would hopefully reflect fair and meaningful thoughts and feelings representative of the entire group. As with interviewing, themes were identified and via open questioning discussions were facilitated. Discussions were analysed as they occurred through identification of themes and the relevant thoughts and opinions of students.
Two group discussions were facilitated during each expedition held over the five weeks. After each discussion group, I took time to reflect on the various emerging issues of the group, the data was compared to my observations and later, the individual interviews. This triangulation of data was important in presenting some validity to any claims made from the action research project.
Action learning sets
Action research is a form of collective self reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social situations in order to improve that rationality and justices of their own social or educational practices and the situations in which the practices are carried out…The approach is only action research when it is collaborative, though it is important to realise that action research of the group is achieved through the critically examined action of individual group members. (Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988)
Action learning sets has developed as a similar tradition, by which individuals come together regularly to share experiences, learn from each other and provide a network of ongoing support for implementing learning and change. Within the present action research project I hoped to overcome some of my own issues and problems by attending our MA Outdoor Education action learning set. These took place at Trinity College on numerous Wednesday evenings, we also had the option of using our group e-mail for further discussions or to raise any issues or concerns that we had.
Ethical considerations
The College I work for at present do not have ethical guidelines in place for educational research. Therefore, I will be following the British Educational Research Association Revised Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research (2004). Guidelines by Trinity College will also be considered during the present project. A research proposal will be submitted to the Senior Management team and Principle of the College I am employed, prior to the research commencing.
Voluntary Informed Consent must be obtained by the participants to ensure they understand and agree to their participation without any duress prior to the research getting underway. As some participants are under the age of 18 years, permission by their parents or guardians will be obtained.
A critical reflection on findings.
Most students that were involved in the study were present for all five sessions, two of which were expeditions and involved wild camps. Even this short time period, the effects on the students and the amount I learnt from the project was both surprising and pleasing. All students found they had a better awareness of the environment and therefore more respect for the planet and natural places. Throughout the course all of the students told of how they are now more interested in nature but in particular this had enhanced over the last couple of months during the walking/ navigation module. Students all acknowledged that from having learnt about nature through experiential ways and having direct contact with the environment their personal interest had developed. In addition to this, the students also claim to be taking more responsibility themselves for doing their bit for the environment, whether it is picking up litter or turning off electricity supplies.
However, claiming success in this action research project would be naïve, before considering and recognising some of the methodological limitations to the study. The collection of data was through group discussion, interview and participant observation. There can be no denial that through these methods there will have been some power relations influence and this should be acknowledged. Through interviews and group discussions it was stressed that the students should express exactly what their thoughts were, as opposed to what they thought I would like to hear. As Kehily (1995) discusses in her work on identity construction, people may wish to present a version of their identity which has resonance with the perceived identity of the audience. It was repeatedly stated that their own thoughts and feelings would not influence them passing the module or attaining the BELA. Through participant observation I was content that an overall picture of the students thoughts and feelings were captured, and in many instances participant observation served to ensure reliability. Method limitations are discussed in more depth in the following section.
Students openly admitted to feeling more at ease with nature through different activities, but all agreed that using walking and expeditions was an ideal way to become more observant of their surroundings. However, one individual expressed their boredom when walking, and felt they were more interested in nature and the environment through activities that were more stimulating and exciting. This was an important point, because all students stated at some point, the importance of being involved in activity whilst also learning about nature and feeling outdoors. Suggestions of being in nature without adventurous activity were, to numerous students, unappealing, this concurs with Martin (2004).
Although it is prudent to be sceptical and cautious of any research findings, it is also encouraging to find that the students in the present study were self motivated to learn about nature. They also enjoyed passing on their knowledge and pieces of information they had learnt about the environment, during leadership sessions. All of the students appreciated learning in the outdoor environment, experiencing it first hand and directly, many times applying what they had discovered through all of their senses. Much of what they had discovered was retained more effectively when they could link stories, facts or experience it in some way. One student stated:
I prefer learning when it is almost subconscious, I don’t like it so much when you are just given the information. When it is there in front of you and you can pass it on to someone else, it makes you feel chuffed, especially when you can point it out first.”
The genuine interest for learning about the environment was apparent, during individual interviews the students commented on how their interest had developed, “I want to ask about things I see more.” Through participant observations it was apparent that the students were asking more questions about species of plants, and getting down on the ground to observe small sections of the earth to identify as much as possible. I was amazed with some individuals interest, to the extent that on some occasions I would have to turn around to see where they had disappeared, only to find them poking around in some boggy grasslands. Additionally, the level three students would also take every opportunity to inform level two students of some local environmental plants and wildlife. This also motivated my own personal development and I was encouraged to learn more myself, about the local mountains and moor lands. In particular the students were interested in plants and their uses, if they could be eaten or if they had medical properties. However, as the weeks passed, I found myself sympathising with Thomas (2004), in the paradox of trying to create a serendipitous teaching style, whilst simultaneously needing to research and prepare for the sessions.
The sessions were very much student led and I felt very much part of the group as opposed to leading the group or as an outsider looking in. This gave me a real insight to the genuine thoughts and feelings of the students. The interactive sessions were effective in highlighting emerging issues that the students were interested in, many of the subjects were on environmental problems that humans have been responsible for. As the facilitator I attempted to suggest small changes in our lives that could make a difference, the students then also responded with their own suggestions and actions they would take. I was aware that all too often we step back into our normal everyday lives forgetting what we had said we would do that very day. During the group discussions it was suggested that as a group we should action something that would have a positive effect on the local environment, the response was very positive. This action emerged from one of the students who informed the group of his work with the local paddling club, in cleaning and clearing rivers. I feel that because this emerged from within the group of students it had more impact on the rest of the group. This action stage in Nicol’s (2003) ways of knowing, is I feel the most neglected stage within research on environmental education and connections with nature. Preston’s (2004) paper concurs in stating that “we are uncertain about the relationship between connecting to a particular place and taking action for other places.”
As within this action research project, I am unsure to what extent the students do take action, and the durability of the values and interest in nature that has been nurtured in this module.
During the project the students improved in their ability to discuss and reflect on issues, students seemed more able to talk openly about their experiences and feelings. During the individual interviews students also commented on how they found the questions thought provoking and challenging to form an answer, but it did allow them to reflect on their time in college and their lives and values.
I do think quite a bit about these issues but often without knowing it, it’s good to think back and recognise what I value about being outside in countryside places.
In particular the students found they could see themselves as instructors with responsibilities and values to pass on to others, something they hadn’t contemplated prior to this experience. I was delighted to observe that this reflection period had allowed the students to think about their ethos as outdoor educators, even if they weren’t entirely sure of how much an influence they could actually be.
Yes I definitely think we should tell others about the environment and try and get them to respect it because if we carry on like we are going it won’t last forever.
During an informal discussion I brought up the issue of ‘deep ecology’ and discussed the philosophies behind it, the students were very interested in discussing how damaging the planet does have repercussions to humans.
It’s like if your good to the trees then they will look after you in some way.
Again, the students were pleased to realise that they subconsciously understood the principles. The discussion also evolved into how humanity has separated itself from nature, we discussed how far away from anything natural some people live, it was very apparent that the students all preferred having the outdoor lifestyle because of needing to be in open natural spaces. All of the students when interviewed enjoyed having natural spaces in their everyday lives and hoped they could continue to do so.
I have always wanted to own some land rather than a house, I prefer living in my shed.
One individual student also commented on how powerful finding the ‘outdoors’ had been to their lives, they described how life changing it had been. The individual felt that life would have been very different had they have experienced outdoor adventurous activities earlier in their life;
Outdoor activities have opened up another world to me that has helped in keeping me on the straight and narrow.
This participant also commented on their intense interest in nature and how to live in harmony with the environment. Their actions during the module also reinforced the respect that had developed; picking up litter throughout the walks, talking to the group about various bush skills, creating natural sculptures and encouraging peers to join in.
Interestingly, all of the students commented on their favourite day in the module, this particular day was totally unstructured and the activities derived from the interests of the group members. The day started at a well known climbers café in Bosherston, Pembrokeshire. We talked about the history of the area in terms of climbing, the military presence, the coastal paths and Pembrokeshire as a National Park. The walk took in St Govans Chapel and related stories, the coastal path to Broad Haven beach and finally the Lily Ponds took us back to Bosherston. The walk itself was over a relatively small distance and we decided not to use maps, but the experience obviously made an impact. As the day evolved it became apparent that through the interests of the students, a substantial amount of knowledge surfaced about the area and local environmental issues. Students also initiated games and activities during the day, these included bouldering, exploring caves, building towers with pebbles and generally enjoying ‘just being’ in the outdoors. This ‘serendipitous’ teaching style was a new journey for myself as a practitioner and a valuable experience. The students told of how they enjoyed the freedom of the day, we reflected and discussed what each individual felt they had gained, one individual stated:
It’s nice to explore a new area of coast that I have never been to before, and it’s so close to home. I didn’t realise until just now, how much we had discovered today about the nature here, and about local specific things. It was a simple walk but really enjoyable, it just shows that you don’t have to do huge planned walks to enjoy the outdoors.
Personally, I viewed the day as valuable and was enthused by the positive response.
Throughout this action research project I have been extremely encouraged from the receptiveness of the students in exploring environmental issues and including environmental education in the module. It has encouraged me to pass on the positive feedback to the department at the College in the hope that more emphasis on environmental days/ content will be continued. The exploratory nature of the environmental activities, and the way they were appreciated by the students concurs with other research work that suggest integrating environmental activities and creating learnable moments, as one student remarked:
I don’t want to be forced to listen to loads of stuff about the wildlife, but it’s interesting when it means something at that moment.
However, although I am pleased with numerous outcomes from this action research, I also believe there are areas to further investigate and thereby initiating further cycles of action research. It was apparent from the group discussions and numerous interviews that the students felt closeness to nature in many ways, and often interpreted the phrase ‘close to nature’ differently. Perhaps this was a fault of the research design; this will be discussed in the next section. Additionally, I remain unsure about how powerful the students feel about protecting the environment long term. Has this project influenced them to take a radical change in the way that they live their everyday lives? Perhaps as Loynes stated on Coopers (1998) work, are the suggested inclusions of environmental education enough to be named critical outdoor education. Furthermore, are they enough to encourage a different radical outlook on life, one that encompasses ‘deep ecology’ philosophy. Perhaps this would be too ambitious for the constraints of the present action research project, but maybe something to investigate in future research. As Nicols (2003) points out, only radical changes to current outdoor education practices may help in facilitating a paradigm shift towards an ecological sound philosophy of being.
Evaluation of methods used.
In the present action research project data was collected through participation observation, semi structured interviews and group discussions. Although I found the methods valuable in extracting relevant research material, the limitations to these methods must be considered.
Firstly, I will consider participation observation as a method of data collection and draw attention to some of the criticisms identified by Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2000):
The accounts that typically emerge from participant observations echo the criticisms of qualitative data… being described as subjective, biased, impressionistic, idiosyncratic and lacking in the precise quantifiable measures that are the hallmark of survey research and experimentation. While it is probably true that nothing can give better insight into the life of a gang of juvenile delinquents than going to live with them for an extended period of time, critics of participant observation will point to the dangers of ‘going native’ as a result of playing a role within such a group. (Cohen et al. 2000)
Typically, criticisms identified are directed at all qualitative data collection methods, and these are evaluated earlier in this report. However, also highlighted is the risk the researcher has in becoming too involved within the subject group, or ‘going native’. However, action research advocates that the researcher has to be involved and is very much part of the process. The teacher is the researcher and is encouraged to be the reflective practitioner, and although they are involved in the research they must also be critical in their reflective practice.
Semi- structured interviews were constructed of open questions to sought rich and personal data from a small sample of participants. Limitations of interviewing include the effect of the power relation between the researcher and interviewed. In the present study I feel that I had a good relationship with the students and it was clearly explained that the students should voice their opinions and feelings truthfully, in doing so wouldn’t affect the module outcome. Avoidance tactics could also be used by students if questioning is too deep, however, in the present study all of the participants attempted to answer all questions. However, meanings of questions and terms can sometimes be unclear to one and clear to others, this was overcome by discussing issues with the students and ensuring they understood what was being asked of them.
Interviews must also be critically reviewed for bias, and we must recognise that all voices of the interviews must be heard, not just the ones that suit our preferred outcomes.
We have moments of illumination. Things ‘come together’. The problem is that people (researchers included) habitually tend to overweight facts they believe in or depend on, to ignore or forget confirming instances more easily than disconfirming instances (Nisbet and Ross, 1980). We do this by differentially weighting information, and by looking at part of the data, not at all of them. (Miles and Huberman, 1994)
I have tried to overcome any bias through the present project by reflecting on practice, being aware of the bias and therefore looking out for signs in my practice. It is generally accepted that there will be some bias in qualitative interpretive action research, however, the findings are also open to the interpretation of the reader.
Focus groups and discussions also have certain limitations; groups have to be carefully balanced in relation to the age, sex and ethnic status of respondents: for example, if young people, women, or people in ethnic minority groups are in disproportionately fewer numbers in the group they may feel socially constrained and not contribute freely to the discussion. It may sometimes be necessary to have single sex groups in similar age ranges in order for the atmosphere to be permissive and relaxed. (Hayes, 2000) In the present project the groups were all male aged between 16 and 24 years of age. Therefore, I felt there would be minimal social constraints within the group, however, I did feel that occasionally the students were reluctant to reveal emotions or feeling within the peer group. The interviews were more effective in exploring the emotions of the students, especially when discussing how the individuals felt about relationships with nature. In this instance, the triangulation of data collection methods was effective in ensuring truthful and valid thoughts and feelings of the students.
Through the action learning sets group I was able to discuss some of the problems or issues I faced. By discussing various methods of using themes and analysing interview data I was able to obtain better understanding of how I could implement this into my own project. As part of the action learning sets, part of the process was to assist others with their issues, I found by being part of the group also helped solve some of my own problems. Through the action learning sets we solved and understood our own difficulties.
Implications for future practice.
The present action research project has encouraged me to incorporate more environmental aspects into many different sessions. The student’s receptivity to many of the activities has motivated my own personal development within environmental, historical and cultural knowledge. As well as provoking the students to reflect and consider their own values and attitudes to the environment, it has also allowed time for my own personal reflection.
The activities within the present research project were experiential, involving direct contact with nature and mostly through physical means. As a practitioner, I have reflected on the way that the students were very receptive to environmental activities, a serendipitous teaching style and environmental discussions. As a result it has motivated me, as a practitioner, to develop and create new ways of experiencing nature through different ways of knowing. I feel the next step in this action research cycle would be to introduce creative ways of knowing nature, perhaps through poetry, writing, drawing etc… the students could experience a truly holistic learning approach. How effective would these methods be in facilitating connections with nature in outdoor education students?
Additionally, the proceeding cycle should explore how students act in their everyday lives in being environmentally responsible. Perhaps the college environment should promote more sustainable practices in order to maintain an environmentally sound ethos. Would this assist students in living an eco- responsible lifestyle? Finally, the present project suggests that students do become more eco- aware and develop a respect for nature and the environment, but how permanent are these attitudes, are they longstanding and do they perhaps develop as their careers within outdoor education progress?
Further investigations need to explore these issues, there is little evidence in research to show how permanent changes in attitude are, and whether connections made with nature are longstanding. Perhaps action research studies over longer periods of time would enable these areas to be explored.
References
Beringer, A. (2004) Toward an Ecological Paradigm in Adventure Programming. Journal of Experiential Education. 27(1), 51-66
Brookes, A. (1993) Deep and Shallow outdoor education: can we tell the difference? The Outdoor Educator. June
Cock, P. H. (2001) Partnering learning and wellbeing education in powerful naturescapes. AAEE/ VAEE/ MESA. Conference: The Future is here Victoria.
Cohen, L. Manion, L and Morrison, K. (2000) 5th Edition Research Methods in Education. Routeledge Falmer, London.
Cooper, G (1998) Outdoors with Young People. Lyme Regis: Russell House.
Davis, B., Rea, T., Waite, S. (2006) The special nature of the outdoors: Its contribution to the education of children aged 3-11. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education. 10(2), 3- 12
Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.) (1994) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Inc.
Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.) (2000) Handbook of Qualitative Research. London, New York: Sage Publications Inc.
Drasdo, H. (1972) Education and the Mountain Centres Tyddyn, Gabriel
Gough, A. (2007) Outdoor and Environmental Studies: More Challenges to its place in the curriculum. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education. 11(2), 19- 28
Guba, E G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Hattie, J., Marsh, H.W., Neill, J.T. (1997) Adventure Education and Outward Bound: Out of Class Experiences That Make a Lasting Difference. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 43- 87.
Henderson, R. (1999) The place of deep ecology and ecopsychology in adventure education. In Miles, C. J. and Priest, S. (Eds.) Adventure Programming. Pennsylvania: Venture Publishing
Higgins, P. (2003) Outdoor Education in the UK: A journey with an uncertain destination? In Humberstone, B., Brown, H. and Richards, K. (Eds) Whose Journeys? The Outdoors and Adventure as Social and Cultural Phenomena. Penrith: The Institute for Outdoor Learning. Pp 131-145
Higgins, P., Loynes, C., Crowther, N. (1997) A guide for outdoor educators in Scotland. Penrith: Adventure Education
Johnson, K. E. (1999) Toward green challenge course. Journal of Experiential Education. 22(3), 149- 153
Kincheloe, J. L. (1991). Teachers as researchers: Qualitative inquiry as a path to empowerment. London: Falmer.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Denzin, N. K. (1994). The fifth moment. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Lincoln, Y. S. and Guba, E. G. (1985) Naturalistic Enquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Loynes, C. (1998) Adventure in a Bun. Journal of Experiential Education. 21(1), 35- 39
Lugg, A (2004) Outdoor adventure in Australian outdoor education: Is it a case of roast for Christmas dinner? Australian Journal of Outdoor Education. 8(1), 4-11
Martin, P. ( 2004 ) Outdoor Education for Human/ Nature Relationships. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education. 8(1), 20- 28
McNiff, J. Lomax, P and Whitehead, J. (2003) 2nd Edition You and Your Action Research Project. Routeledge Falmer, Oxon.
Mortlock, C. (1984) The Adventure Alternative. Cumbria: Cicerone Press
Naess, A. (1989) Ecology, community and lifestyle. Cambridge: University Press
Nicol, R. (2002) Outdoor Education: Research Topic or Universal Value? Part One. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning. 2(1), 29- 41
Nicol, R. (2002) Outdoor Education: Research Topic or Universal Value? Part Two. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning. 2(2), 85- 99
Nicol, R. (2003) Outdoor Education: Research Topic or Universal Value? Part Three. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning. 3(1), 11-28
Nicol, R. and Higgins, P. (1998) A sense of place: A context for environmental outdoor education. In Higgins, P. & Humberstone, B. (eds) Celebrating diversity: Learning by sharing cultural differences. Buckinghamshire: European Institute for Outdoor Adventure Education and Experiential Learning. Pp 50- 55
Nicholls, V. and Gray, T. (2007) The role of stillness and quiet when developing human/ nature relationships. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education. 11(1), 21-28
Preston, L (2004) Making connections with nature: Bridging the theory- practice gap in outdoor and environmental education. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education. 8(1), 12-19
Preston, L and Griffiths, A (2004) Pedagogy of connections: Findings of a collaborative action research project in outdoor and environmental education. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education. 8(2), 36-45
Thomas, G. (2004) Skills and thrills in outdoor environmental education: A contradiction or beautiful tension?
Winter, R. (1982) Dilemma analysis: a contribution to methodology for action research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 12 (3), 161-174
