REFEREED PAPER Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 17(1), 47-53, 2013

Changing spaces, changing relationships: the positive impact

of learning out of doors
Graham Scott and Margaret Boyd
University of Hull
Derek Colquhoun
Independent Consultant

Abstract
We have used the experiences of teachers and their pupils to explore the impact of participation in a shared outdoor learning
experience upon specific aspects of both the teacher/pupil and pupil/pupil relationship. Prior to their taking part in an out of
classroom lesson the teachers involved in our project were relatively inexperienced in teaching out of doors. At that stage they
expressed a view that the children in their class would respond to the novelty of being outside by misbehaving and that they
would in effect “lose control” of some of them. They also shared anxieties about losing their expert status as a result of being
asked to teach outside of their comfort zone. After taking part in an outdoor lesson the same teachers described their pupils
as being more engaged with learning and better behaved whilst outdoors than when in the classroom. They also expressed
the view that through learning together and to some extent blurring their expert/pupil roles teachers and pupils had shared a
positive learning experience. The children themselves expressed the view that they had enjoyed working together (with one
another and with their teacher), that they had engaged with the tasks at hand, and that they had communicated with one
another more effectively whilst learning.

Keywords: Fieldwork, learning outdoors, primary science, children’s behaviour, teacher confidence

Introduction about nature through outdoors play (Dowdell, Gray

Our interest in outdoor learning is particularly
focused upon the value of an authentic experience
of animals and plants in their natural environment
as part of formal (or informal) education related to
nature, ecology and environmental studies (e.g. Scott,
Churchill, Grassam, & Scott, 2011; Scott & Boyd, 2012
and Scott et al., 2012). Through these cited studies we
have sought to demonstrate a positive relationship
between cognitive learning and learning in the outdoor
environment. This learning may be discipline specific
as in the case in Scott et al., (2012) where we showed
that the acquisition of laboratory skills needed by
ecologists can be enhanced if undergraduate students
are provided with an outdoor context to their learning.
Or it may be learning at the interface of traditional
discipline areas as in the cases of Scott, et al. (2011)
and Scott and Boyd (2012) where we demonstrated
both short (weeks) and medium (months) term
improvement in aspects of literacy amongst children
(8-10 years old) who were involved in experiential
learning activities related to ecology/biodiversity
topics in an outdoor setting.
Similarly Drissner, Haase and Hille (2010) have
shown that a positive outcome of learning in an
outdoor setting, a green classroom, was that children
demonstrated higher levels of motivation and interest
in learning about the environment than children who
did not have an outdoor learning experience. For
younger children the emphasis might be upon learning
& Malone, 2011). Older children and young adults
on the other hand have been shown to develop an
improved relationship with the natural world through
participation in outdoor based adventure activities
and physical challenges (Martin, 2004). Waite (2007)
has suggested that actual contact with plants and
animals in an outdoor setting interacts strongly with
memory and as a result enhances subsequent retention
and recall of learned material and fosters motivation to
learn. Chawla (1999) and Ballantyne and Packer (2002)
have shown that direct interaction with nature during
childhood significantly influences the development
of positive attitudes towards environmental issues
that are likely to be maintained into adulthood. It
is significant that learning in any setting involves an
interaction of place, body, mind, culture and society
(Waite, 2011) and the act of moving learning from
an indoor classroom setting to the outdoors has the
potential to enhance and/or shift the focus of these
interactions and to therefore be a key episode in
personal development.
We agree with authors such as Barker, Slingsby
and Tilling (2002) and Rickinson et al. (2004) that
evidence based evaluations of the value of outdoor
education such as those that we have cited are
important given the pressures faced by providers of
outdoor education. In the United Kingdom, as in other
areas of the world, there has been a decline in the
provision of fieldwork and outdoor learning in recent
decades (Fisher, 2001; O’Donnell, Morris & Wilson,

47

2006), and even in the face of increasing awareness of
the value of outdoor education as a result of current
national debates (in the UK and in Australia for
example) teachers are still reluctant (or unable) to
take their classes outside (Fägerstam, 2012; Maynard,
Waters & Clement, 2011) and children may be at
risk therefore of losing, or failing to develop further,
any connection to their natural environment that
they might have been expected to have (Fägerstam,
2012). Whilst the barriers to going outside have been
discussed by authors such as Barker, Slingsby and
Tilling (2002), Rickinson et al. (2004) and Waite (2007)
in the UK, by Lugg and Martin (2001) and Polley
and Pickett (2003) in Victoria and South Australia
respectively, and by Zink and Boyes (2006) in New
Zealand, the emphasis has been upon practical factors
such as cost, risk, the structure of the school day
and initial teacher training (or lack thereof). We feel
that an unexplored barrier experienced by reluctant
teachers relates to the potential shifts in interpersonal
behaviour and interpersonal relationships that might
result when learning is moved into a novel space. In
the current study we use the experiences of teachers
and their pupils to explore the impact of participation
in a shared outdoor learning experience upon specific
aspects of both the teacher/pupil and pupil/pupil
relationship.
The context of our study
This project is a part of a body of work
undertaken by us in North and East Yorkshire in
the United Kingdom. The wider project, Harnessing
enthusiasm for biodiversity to enhance the learning
experience, is reported in detail elsewhere (Scott,
Boyd & Colquhoun (2013), and at www.hull.ac.uk/
primaryschoolfieldwork, but in essence it has
involved our working with teachers and children in
eight state primary schools. The aims of the wider
project were to investigate the barriers that prevent
learning out of doors, to develop a pupil centred
learning task that integrated indoor and outdoor
learning, and to evaluate the cognitive and affective
impacts of that learning task upon aspects of literacy
(writing) and science. The project involved 210 pupils
taking part in a fieldwork activity in their school
grounds or within walking distance of the school site.
This activity was not part of the formal curriculum of
the school, but was designed to complement elements
of the English and Science Key Stage 2 curricula that
were being taught at the time as required by the U.K.
National Curriculum. The school grounds were of
different sizes but all featured large areas of mown
grass, mature trees and were usually surrounded by
a metal fenced boundary. Some of the schools had
areas that had been created to provide some habitat
diversity which included longer grass, log piles and
ponds. Children were either from year 5 or 6 (10 or
11 year olds) and the activity took place at different
Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 17(1), 47-53, 2013
times of the year depending on individual school
circumstances. The eight teachers involved in the
project (2 male and 6 female) varied in their teaching
experience (recently qualified to very experienced)
but none of them described themselves as specialists
in outdoor ecology (all would usually teach ecology in
a classroom setting) and only one of them described
herself as an outdoor teacher (in the context of
adventure activity and physical education). To protect
their anonymity teachers are referred to by gender
appropriate pseudonyms (Mark, Rebecca, Catherine,
Callum, Suzanne, Sophie, Anna and Lisa).
Our outdoor learning involved classes being
given the task of producing their own photographic
field guide to the plants and/or animals that lived in
their school grounds or at a site close to the school (Scott
et al, 2012). For example one group catalogued the life
in their school pond, another looked at plants on their
school field, one group walked to a local beach and
another group investigated trees in a local woodland.
In each case the children were provided with a space
in which to work and with safety instructions, but then
allowed freedom to choose how exactly to explore
the area. They worked in small mixed sex groups
(typically 4 or 5 children) to collect and identify the
living things that they found. The outdoor component
of the task typically lasted for 3 hours, half of which
was spent collecting, photographing and identifying,
and half of which was spent making detailed
observations of specimens. During this second phase
the children’s learning was scaffolded to an extent
in that they were asked to record the place that an
organism was found and what it looked like, and they
were also asked to pose questions based upon their
observations that they might like to find the answer
to during a linked classroom based ICT session. Each
group was accompanied by their teacher or by an adult
helper, but adult input was minimal during the out of
classroom session.
As part of our wider project we have collected a
number of data sets that we are able to explore in the
context of the current paper. Specifically, we have at
our disposal the direct observations of the authors
and the notes that they made during and immediately
after fieldwork sessions; we have transcripts of one
to one, face to face interviews (10-20 minutes) with
individual teachers carried out immediately after
their participation in the fieldwork exercise and/or at
the conclusion of the project; we have transcripts of 5
researcher facilitated focus group discussions (each
of approximately 2 hours duration) prior to, during
and following the project (these discussions involved
the teachers, the researchers and two other project
participants (an ecologist and an academic colleague
involved in initial teacher training), and we have 191
thank you letters written by the children themselves
48
Changing spaces, changing relationships: the positive impact of learning out of doors
to the project team. The children were asked to write
these letters by their teacher, and in them they were
simply asked to describe what they felt they learnt
from the activity, recall what they enjoyed and suggest
improvements that could be made to the learning
exercise to to make it better for future classes.
It is important that we acknowledge that we did
not set out to investigate inter-personal relationships
in the context of learning out of doors when we
designed our data collection protocols. Rather we have
developed an interpretivist exploration of our data
(and in the context of the focus group data jointly with
the teachers involved in the project) and we appreciate
the fact that having done so ours is a subjective
analysis (Atkins and Wallace, 2012).
Prior to its commencement our project was
approved by the relevant research ethics committee of
the university. All participating teachers volunteered
to take part and gave informed consent. Informed
consent was provided by the parents/legal guardians
of all participating students on their behalf. All
participants had the right to withdraw, or withdraw
their data, at any point up to publication.
Framing the area of investigation
Initially in a pre-project focus group meeting
we described the proposed fieldwork exercise and
discussed the potential barriers teachers felt would
prevent it taking place in the context of their own
school. From an interpretive analysis of the transcript
of that discussion we have identified two of the three
themes that we have chosen as the focus of this paper.
These themes were independently identified by M.
Boyd and G. Scott in their analysis of the data and
refined by both of them and D. Colquhoun through
subsequent discussion. Both of these themes, Loss
of control and Loss of expert status, relate to teacher
anxieties about teacher/pupil relationships.
Loss of control
In discussions with teaching staff about the
reasons that they are reluctant to take their pupils
outside, it was apparent that they were not confident
that the outdoor classroom would allow them to
employ their favoured classroom management
strategies. Essentially the teachers were anxious that
the children would behave inappropriately and that
they would lose control:
“ I know that I think some teachers would
find it very difficult in an informal setting
where they didn’t have so much control,
I think that losing control is very hard for
49
the teachers.” Anna, during initial focus
group discussion.
“[Outside] you are not in control in the
same way.” Mark, during initial focus
group discussion.
If teachers have concerns about how their
pupils are going to behave in a novel environment
then understandably they will be reluctant to move
beyond their comfort zone because the relationship
that exists between child and teacher in the classroom
is not, in their perception, going to be maintained,
and as a result it will be difficult if not impossible for
positive learning to take place and the lesson learning
objectives to be met:
“Yes behaviour [is a barrier], .... you can
control it in the class. You have a really
big field and they will run away from
you, and some of the boys they do that
in my class. ... obviously that’s another
barrier.” Suzanne, during initial focus
group discussion.
“We have quite a few children who display
difficult behaviour in a classroom... never
mind when you take them out. It’s not
just children who don’t do what they
are asked or anything like that we’ve got
some with serious behaviour problems.”
Catherine, during initial focus group
discussion.
“I guess it’s the unpredictability that
makes you nervous.” Rebecca, during
initial focus group discussion.
Loss of expert status
It was evident from our discussion that the
teachers involved in our project were comfortable
within their classrooms because they felt secure in their
expert status and in the traditional teacher/student
relationship. Teachers were clearly uncomfortable
with the idea that being in an unfamiliar situation
(teaching ecology outdoors) would expose their
own lack of knowledge. On the other hand some
teachers expressed confidence that they could become
“experts” and gain knowledge prior to the session
(primary teachers commonly teach outside their
own specialism and teach a breadth of subject areas).
Clearly this would enable them to retain their expert
status and maintain the teacher/pupil relationship, but
these teachers were concerned that simply teaching
out of doors would be problematic; perhaps indicating
that all project participants shared a common concern
about status relationships:

“I’m not really somebody who naturally
would know what the birds are and it’s
just not me” Mark, during initial focus
group discussion.
“The barrier is working outside rather
than the subject” Lisa, during initial focus
group discussion.
“Yes [the problem is] going out not subject
knowledge” Rebecca, during initial focus
group discussion.
Working with others
The third theme (Working with others) relates to
pupil/pupil relationships. This theme was developed
independently by M. Boyd (and then validated by
G. Scott and D. Colquhoun) through her reading of
the 191 letters written by the children following their
participation in the learning task.
In summary then we have used the development
of these three themes to ask two specific questions
which we seek to answer through an exploration of
the data available to us (the focus group and interview
transcripts, our research notes and the pupils’ letters).
First we ask; does an out of classroom learning experience
necessarily lead to poor child behaviour and a loss of control
by the teacher? Second, we ask; does engagement by
children necessarily suffer if teachers lose expert status?
Findings and Discussion
Poor child behaviour and a loss of control by the
teacher
So, does an out of classroom learning experience
necessarily lead to poor behaviour and a loss of
control? No it does not. From focus group and
interview transcripts and from the letters written by
the children it was evident that contra to the teachers’
expectations and anxieties there was no sense that
individual teachers had lost control during the
outdoor sessions. In many cases the behaviour of the
children was described as having improved, children
were commonly described as being engaged with their
learning and on-task:
“The children in my class were definitely
more engaged, they were much more
switched on [during the fieldwork]
than they would [usually] be.” Mark,
describing his experience during a post
task focus group discussion.
“There are a couple of children who can be
a bit difficult, but they were fully engaged
for the two sessions and were just on task
Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 17(1), 47-53, 2013
the whole time.” Callum, comment made
during post session debriefing interview.
“For that boy, for him to sit down and
concentrate without an adult next to him
is the biggest achievement.” Suzanne,
when describing her experiences to other
teacher participants during post task
focus group discussion.
“Despite working with other people we
behaved perfectly and sensibly.” Letter
written by child taught by Lisa.
“I think those children whose behaviour
is more challenging, or appears to be
more challenging in the classroom, they
don’t stand out as much in the outside
environment.” Rebecca, comment made
during post session debriefing interview.
Loss of expert status
So does pupil engagement necessarily suffer if
teachers lose expert status? No it does not. None of the
teachers were able to achieve expert status as outdoor
teachers or ecologists (in the context of the work to be
carried out) prior to the fieldwork exercise, nor should
we have expected them to attempt to do so. However
by accepting this and then working with the children
in a new teacher/pupil relationship a new and effective
shared learning dynamic was established. The teachers
were learning alongside the children. It was evident to
us from the focus group and interview transcripts and
from the letters written by the children that this was
potentially a highly effective learning relationship:
“It [the outdoor activity] showed the
kids that your teacher doesn’t know
everything like they think because they
learnt with you as well and in that respect
the kids got a lot from that and we were
learning together and I thought that
worked really well.” Suzanne, during end
of project focus group.
“Children love it don’t they when the
teacher doesn’t know something and you
say to them this is the first time we are
doing this and I am going to be learning
as well and they think that’s wonderful.”
Lisa, during end of project focus group.
“In a sense I learnt alongside the children”
Mark, during post session de-briefing
interview.
50
Changing spaces, changing relationships: the positive impact of learning out of doors
“I loved the sharing of ideas out on the
school field.” From letter written by child
taught by Catherine.
“They were doing that very much
themselves in their groups, the adults
weren’t experts at all. They were working
together, children and adults, using those
charts [identification keys] they were
naming the plants.” Catherine, during
post session de-briefing interview.
“They do see you in a different light,
you seem more of a person to them
than just their teacher, so the better your
relationship with them, the better they
want to please you, so I think all that does
have an impact on their behaviour and
therefore their learning.” Lisa, during end
of project focus group.
Although in the case of one teacher there
remained a perception that the shift in relationship
was perhaps an unbalanced one:
“Yes they still see you as the teacher
with boundaries and things, but you see
a different side to them rather than a
change in relationship.” Rebecca, during
end of project focus group.
Working with others
The letters written by the children brought to the
fore the social nature of the learning that had taken
place. It was clear that the children enjoyed working in
partnership with one another (and with their teachers).
It was also evident that in many cases the children
themselves were aware of a difference in their own
engagement with group work in comparison with their
classroom experiences. These views were validated by
the data provided by teachers during our focus group
discussions with them. The enthusiasm developed
by children during their outdoor experience stayed
with them and we found evidence that in some cases
children became experts in the sense that they taught
one another, taught their teachers, and then in an out
of school setting went on to provide information to
members of their family:
“I really enjoyed being in small groups”
From letter written by child taught by
Catherine.
“It was good working with my friends
because we worked well in a group and
none of us argued” From letter written by
child taught by Lisa.
51
“Not only were they on task but I think
that the way they were speaking to each
other was fantastic” Callum, during post
session focus group discussion.
“I liked working in groups, we made each
other laugh” From letter written by child
taught by Rebecca.
“Some children really thrived out there
because they had a lot to share.....they
were the expert because they knew
things” Lisa, during post session focus
group discussion.
“Several comments had been made
by children who had talked about the
previous day’s work at home” Suzanne,
during post session focus group
discussion.
“One child had investigated harvestmen
using his own computer, and had shown
his mother his work and was keen to
share his knowledge” From letter written
by child taught by Sophie.
Conclusions
As a result of our analysis we believe that the
lessening of the teachers’ anxiety about being outdoors
and out of their depth, coupled with a shift in teacher/
pupil and pupil/pupil relationships interacted
with the benefits of a novel learning space to have a
positive effect on the wider learning experience. The
children involved in our learning exercises described
themselves, and were described by their teachers,
as being motivated and engaged. This is a regularly
reported characteristic of learning outdoors (e.g.
Laevers, 2000; Scott, et al., 2011). Although a note
of caution must be applied here because it is also
suggested that in situations where the outdoor setting
is too novel, learning might be hampered (Falk &
Balling, 1982). The positive behaviours (interpersonal
behaviours and learning behaviours) exhibited by
the children were instrumental in enabling teachers
to overcome their anxieties, but they will also have
positively impacted upon the engagement of, and by
extension therefore upon the learning achieved by
the children themselves. Laevers (2000) has suggested
that deeper learning takes place when children are
at the highest levels of involvement and engagement
with learning activities and Nundy (1999) has stated
that when affective development (such as improved
behaviour and improved self-awareness of behavioural
shifts) takes place, enhanced cognitive achievement
broadly follows. Positive emotional connections
related to effective group based learning and active

social learning are likely to result in particularly strong
episodic memories which become the pegs upon
which to hang other semantic memory (Berryman
2000; Chawla 1999; Farmer, Knapp & Benton 2007;
Waite 2007).
It has been suggested that the most effective
means by which a reluctant classroom teacher can be
encouraged to make the leap to teach outside of the
classroom is by providing them with an opportunity to
learn outdoors themselves (Bixler, Floyd & Hammitt,
2002; Nundy, Dillon & Dowd, 2009; Dresner, 2002;
Nundy, 1999). However, in the UK context at least,
there is a lack of practical training for teachers in this
area (Kendall et.al., 2006; Fägerstam, 2012) increasing
the difficulties that teachers have even if they are aware
of their own reluctance to step outside and have self –
motivation to overcome it. As a consequence outdoor
teaching is often carried out by non school based
providers such as the Field Studies Council in the UK
and Environmental Education Centres in Australia
(Fägerstam, 2012). Projects such as ours demonstrate
that by surrendering expert status and entering into
a learning partnership with the children in their
care teachers may be in a position to overcome this
barrier. Teachers benefit from the acquisition of new
knowledge themselves and that benefit is transmitted
to the students during subsequent shared learning
experiences (Nundy, et al., 2009; Dresner, 2002).
References
Atkins, L. & Wallace, S. (2012). Qualitative Research in
Education. London: Sage.
Ballantyne, R. & Packer, J. (2002). Nature-based
excursions: School students’ perceptions of
learning in natural environments. International
Research in Geographical and Environmental
Education, 11(3), 218-236.
Barker, S. Slingsby, D. & Tilling, S. (2002). Teaching
Biology outside the classroom: Is it heading for
extinction? A report on biology in the 14-19
curriculum. FSC Occasional Publication 72. Preston
Montford, Shropshire: Field Studies Council.
Berryman, T. (2000). Looking at children’s
relationships with nature from a developmental
perspective: towards an appropriate curriculum.
In P. J. Fonts & M. Gomes (Eds.), Environmental
Education and the Contemporary World. Proceedings of
the International Congress on Environmental Education
and the Contemporary world. 19-20 October 2000.
(Lisbon, Instituto de Inovacao Educacional).
Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 17(1), 47-53, 2013
Bixler, R.D., Floyd, M. F. & Hammitt, W .E. (2002).
Environmental Socialization: Quantitative Tests of
the Childhood Play Hypothesis. Environment and
Behaviour, 43(6), 795-818.
Chawla, L. (1999). Life paths into effective
environmental action. Journal of Environmental
Education, 31(1), 15-26.
Dowdell, K., Gray, T. & Malone, K. (2011). Nature and
its influence on children’s outdoor play. Australian
Journal of Outdoor Education, 15(2), 24-35.
Dresner, M. (2002) Monitoring forest biodiversity with
teachers in the woods. Journal of Environmental
Education, 34(1), 4-8.
Drissner, J., Haase, H. & Hille, K. (2010). Short-term
environment education – Does it work? – An
evaluation of the “Green Classroom”. Journal of
Biological Education, 44(4), 149-155.
Fägerstam, E. (2012). Children and Young People’s
Experience of the Natural World: Teachers’
Perceptions and Observations. Australian Journal of
Environmental Education, 28(1), 1-16.
Farmer, J., Knapp, D. & Benton, G. M. (2007). An
elementary school environmental fieldtrip: Long-
term effects on ecological and environmental
knowledge and attitude development. The Journal
of Environmental Education, 38(3), 33-42.
Falk, J. & Balling, J. (1982). The field trip milieu:
learning and behaviour as a function of contextual
events. Journal of Education Research, 76(1), 22-28.
Fisher, J. (2001). The demise of fieldwork as an
integral part of science education in the United
Kingdom schools: A victim of cultural change and
political pressure? Pedagogy, Culture and Society,
9(1), 75-96.
Kendall, S., Murfield, J., Dillon, J. & Wilkin, A. (2006)
Education Outside the Classroom: Research to identify
what training is offered by initial teacher training
institutions. National Foundation for Educational
Research, DfES, UK.
Laevers, F. (2000). Forward to basics! Deep level
learning and the experiential approach. Early Years,
20(2), 20-29.
Lugg, A. & Martin, P. (2001) The nature and scope of
outdoor education in Victorian Schools. Australian
Journal of Outdoor Education, 5(2), 42-48.
52
Changing spaces, changing relationships: the positive impact of learning out of doors

Martin, P. (2004). Outdoor adventure in promoting Waite, S. (2007). “Memories are made of this”:
relationships with nature. Australian Journal of Some reflections on outdoor learning and recall.
Outdoor Education, 8(1), 20-28. Education 3-13, 35(4).

Maynard, T., Waters, J. & Clement, J. (2011). Moving
outdoors: further explorations of “child-initiated”
learning in the outdoor environment. Education
3-13, 41(3), 282-299.
Nundy, S. (1999). The fieldwork effect: The role
and impact of fieldwork in the upper primary
school. International Research in Geographical and
Environmental Education, 8(2), 190-198.
Nundy, S., Dillon, J. & Dowd, P. (2009). Improving
and encouraging teacher confidence in out-
of-classroom learning: the impact of the
Hampshire Trailblazer project on 3-13 curriculum
practitioners. Education 3-13, 37(1), 61-73.
O’Donnel, L., Morris, M. & Wilson, R. (2006).
Education outside the classroom: An assessment of
activity and practice in schools and local authorities.
NfER. (RR803).
Waite, S. (Ed) (2011). Children learning outside the
classroom: from birth to eleven. London: Sage.
Zink, R. & Boyes, M. (2006). The nature and scope
of outdoor education in New Zealand schools.
Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 10(1), 11-21.
About the Authors
Dr Graham Scott is a Senior Lecturer. He
is a biologist and holds a UK National Teaching
Fellowship. Mrs Margaret Boyd is a teacher and
environmental educator. Graham and Margaret are
particularly interested in student centred learning in
an out of doors context. Professor Derek Colquhoun is
an independent consultant who specialises the area of
Health Promoting Schools.
Email: g.scott@hull.ac.uk

Polley, S. & Pickett, B. (2003). The nature and scope of

outdoor education in South Australia: A summary
of key findings. Australian Journal of Outdoor
Education, 7(2), 11-18.

Rickinson, M., Dillon, J., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi,

M. Y., Sanders, D. & Benefield, P. (2004). A review
of research on outdoor learning. Preston Montford,
Shropshire: Field Studies Council.

Scott, G. W., Churchill, H., Grassam, M. & Scott, L.

(2011). Can the integration of field and classroom-
based learning enhance writing? The life on our
shore case study. Education 3-13, 40(5), 547-560.

Scott, G. W. & Boyd, M. (2012). A potential value of

familiarity and experience: can informal fieldwork
have a lasting impact upon literacy? Education 3-13,
iFirst, DOI 10.1080/03004279.2012.731418.

Scott, G. W., Boyd, M. & Colquhoun, D. (2013).

Harnessing Enthusiasm for Biodiversity to Enhance
the Learning Experience. Retrieved from www.hull.
ac.uk/primaryschoolfieldwork.

Scott, G. W., Goulder, R., Wheeler, P., Scott, L. J.,

Tobin, M. L. & Marsham, S. (2012). The Value of
Fieldwork in Life and Environmental Sciences in
the Context of Higher Education: A Case Study
in Learning About Biodiversity. Journal of Science
Education and Technology 21, 11-21.

53
Copyright of Australian Journal of Outdoor Education is the property of Outdoor Council of
Australia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.