An Evaluation of two pieces of research on Forest School practice.
This study examines and evaluates two pieces of research that have been conducted on Forest School practice. A lot of research has been conducted over the past 20 years on Forest Schools, ranging from case studies to large scale statistical analysis. The aims and objectives of each research study varies, as they delve into different elements of Forest School practice and of course, it depends on who has commissioned the research and what it is setting out to discover or prove. The criterion, the methods the researchers use to observe measure and record, also vary as do the sample size, the age of the group and the time scale of the research.
Grounds of comparison
There is a large range of research available however; I only selected papers to read that had a clear purpose of study and those that were of personal interest to me. One area that I have always found particularly absorbing is social and emotional difficulties and in 2011 I studied a Master’s degree on this very subject. So, I would like to discover more about the impact of Forest Schools on student wellbeing and health and I also feel that this theme is especially relevant today as we venture into a post-covid 19 period. In addition to this I am interested in understanding the current status of Forest School practice. I would therefore, like to select current projects but it would be interesting to examine and compare two very different criteria.
Consequently, the two pieces of research that I shall be using in this comparative study are: Bringing children closer to nature, Report of a survey on Forest School and outdoor learning in England (Hemery, G, Hurst J, Perokofsky, 2019, England) and Impacts of long Term Forest School Programmes on Children’s Resilience, Confidence and Wellbeing (Blackwell, 2015, England). I have chosen to base my study on these two pieces of research because I feel they will help me to gain a wider understanding of the implications of Forest School practice. They will also help me to assess the barriers and opportunities at play when establishing my own Forest School practice. Both of these studies are very different in form and content. One of them uses illuminative evaluation (Blackwell, 2015,p2) to gather qualitative data while the other takes a quantitative research approach and is based on a survey in England. Both studies have been written in the past four years so the findings are current and relevant today.
During this comparative study I will outline the methodology and focus of each piece of research and discuss their findings and insights, giving a frame of reference. I will compare and contrast their conclusions and raise any questions that occur from my reading, querying their fairness and validity. Finally I will discuss the way in which they cohere and if they together have a meaningful argument. I will reference all of my sources and can guarantee that my work is authentic and reliable.
The purpose and value of conducting a comparative study such as this, is that it will allow me to understand the variety of research available on Forest School practice. It will help me to become a more informed and reflective practitioner, who can review available research and evaluate not only its findings but also its methodology. I will be reflecting not only on the practical act of research but also on the mental experience I go through as I read which will help to construct my own meaning and direction for my own Forest School. This act of reflective practice will also allow me to engage in a thoughtful relationship between the world I know of outdoor learning and that which has been commented on and seen by researchers.
Research Paper 1- Bringing children closer to nature, Report of a survey on Forest School and outdoor learning in England (Hemery, G, Hurst J, Petrokofsky, 2019, England)
The first piece of research that I shall analyse was launched in “the winter of 2018” (Hemery et al, 2019, p19) and published in 2019 by a group of researchers, Hemery G, Hurst and Petrofsky (Hemery et al, 2019, p1). This research study entitled The Bringing Children Closer to Nature Survey was commissioned by the Sylva Foundation to deliver the Forest Schools for All Project. It was funded by The Ernset Cook Trust (Hemery et al, 2019, p1). The Forest School Association was also part of the core partnership and they supported the design of the survey and its promotion (Hemery et al, 2019, p1). The survey was sent to “educational practitioners, both in School and Non-school and also to woodland owners”(Hemery et al, 2019, p2). The main aims of this survey were to present:
“….a snapshot of the current status of Forest School practice and outdoor learning in wooded areas and forests, and to specifically gather much needed evidence concerning barriers and opportunities to establish and sustaining Forest School practice.”(Hemery et al, 2019, p2)
The survey attracted 1,171 respondents, mostly from England. The majority were school educators (51%), while (41%) were Non-school educators, and (8%) woodland owners (Hemery et al, 2019, p2) and it had a geographic emphasis on England. Respondents were asked to:
“….self-identify with their main role, which determined the section of questions that they were presented” (Hemery et al, 2019,p 4)
When they were developing the survey, the aims of the Forest Schools for All project were used to help design the questions. Additional questions, we are told in the report, were included to ensure a full picture could be gained of respondents’ views, values and experiences (Hemery et al, 2019, p4). The survey consisted of 169 questions in total, organised within three main sections and many of the questions were multiple choice (Hemery et al, 2019, p4). The three main sections were: 1) Gathering basic information, 2) Understanding more about barriers and opportunities and 3) Exploring potential interest among woodland owners. A copy of the full set of questions is available at https://www.sylva.org.uk/forestschools (Hemery et 2019, p4).
In addition to exploring what educators and woodland owners were doing and why, we are told that the survey also asked about past practice and any change over time and why, “aiming to provide an indication of any barriers or opportunities to sustaining outdoor learning” (Hemery et al, 2019, p 5)
This piece of research uses qualitative data to quantify any issues regarding establishing and sustaining Forest School provisions. Quantitative research is about the systematic empirical investigation of observable statistical information. It measures, as Keegan (2009) points out:
”…the proportion of the population who think and behave in a particular way. This achieved by counting the number of people who…agree with certain statements, and producing statistics to show the proportions of the population that fall into specific categories” (Keegan, 2009, p11)
People were invited to participate in a structured online survey, built in LimeSurvey, an open-source survey tool (www.limesurvey.org) (Hemery et al, 2019, p4). As the piece of research states, therefore it was only available to people willing and able to work online:
“it was designed to operate on desktop computers as well as mobile devices. The greatest strength of an online survey is that it is a method of gathering a large amount of information from a large number of people without incurring the sorts of costs that other forms of social research entail.” (Hemery et al, 2019,p 4)
However, as the report asserts, the responses that the participants gave reflect only the views of those who participated in the survey online:
“….there are well-documented reasons why there may be a bias towards respondents who feel particularly strongly in favour of the survey topic, or, indeed, have strong views to the contrary. The survey was well publicised to attract the widest possible response, but inevitably, those who were made aware of it were to some extent already engaged with outdoor learning and Forest School” (Hemery et al, 2019, p4)
There are of course other problems with research conducted through questionnaires the main one of these being that interpretations of questions can vary among respondents, as can the strength of agreement with statements offered. The survey is therefore, as the report states “a snap-shot in time for a group who chose to respond to the survey.” (Hemery et al, 2019, p4)
Open responses were also given in the form of comments and these were used to add richness to the text however they did not undertake qualitative narrative analysis. The main finding and insights of this survey were that:
“….. one-third (30%) of school respondents practiced Forest School, and similarly 26% practiced some form of curriculum-based learning outside the classroom. Less than 10%practiced both” (Hemery et al, 2019, p19)
These results show that a diversity of outdoor learning provision is available. I know from reflecting on the provision available at the school where I teach that we undertake outdoor learning but not through Forest School practice. There is as the report suggests:
“….potential for Forest School and other outdoor learning provision to expand beyond the current level, although a number of barriers exist. The majority of provision of Forest School within schools was undertaken by school staff, supported occasionally by external providers.” (Hemery et al, 2019, p2)
The survey showed that 57% of Forest School practice is taking place in Early Years Foundation Stage settings and Key stage 1 in primary schools (Hemery et al, 2019, p2). Again, from my own research for my assignment on “The History of Forest Schools” I found that the majority of Forest Schools in Hampshire were designed for the Early Years Foundation Stage. This is quite a predictable result as the timetables and curricula expectations are more flexible in the Early Years and Key stage 1. In Key Stage 2 a provision of 39% was recorded. Forest School provisions for secondary schools were very low, a provision of only 4% was recorded (Hemery et al, 2015, p2). However, the results did show that there is a greater provision of secondary Forest Schools and these are led by Non-school educators. The fundamental constraints of timetables and the curriculum were it is stated “repeated time and again in open comments” (Hemery et al, 2019, p 4).
Both school and Non-school educators reported that the most common delivery of Forest School was “weekly sessions over one academic year, the next most common being shorter periods of weekly sessions for one term” (Hemery et al, 2019, p 19).
Many comments that were noted from respondents emphasised the importance and impact on children of long-term, regular Forest School sessions to enable connection with the natural world. This is something that is referenced in my second research study and I will be drawing a comparison to this later on in this study as this is one of the six key principles of Forest School practice.
The majority of schools in the survey had established Forest Schools or other outdoor learning sites within their school grounds and it was non-school educators who required transport for pupils to get to sites away from school (Hemery et al, 2019, p20).
It was found within the report that risk-related training needs were ranked among the highest priorities for all educators in managing an outdoor education site, specifically “Tree health”(Hemery, et al, p20). Most schools had a Level 3 trained Leader, as Forest School is unique amongst other outdoor learning approaches in its requirement of this qualification to run Forest School sessions. Therefore site management plans were in place.
Most schools reported having a site within their school. The study quite rightly asserts that:
“It is likely that schools use their own grounds as a resource for Forest School and outdoor learning to reduce cost of transport to other locations, however costs of maintaining these sites may be a barrier to sustaining Forest School and outdoor learning” (Hemery et al, 2019, p20).
I know from my own experience that funding would definitely be a barrier for setting up a Forest School outside of the school grounds at the moment and I plan to use the school grounds for my own Forest School practice. The survey also notes that there were a relatively low proportion of respondents from deprived schools.
The importance of core support from school Head Teachers, leadership teams and whole school staff was frequently repeated in comments by School Educators:
“….who also expressed the need to find ways to measure and justify the value of Forest Schools.” (Hemery et al, 2019, p21).
Since the survey was launched in 2018, Ofsted published a new inspection framework in 2019 with changes and key judgement criteria of “personal development” and this may in the future enable schools to increase Forest School and outdoor learning practice (Hemery et al, 2019, p21). The new Ofsted framework includes a category to judge how schools help learners to keep themselves mentally and physically healthy (gov.uk/ education-inspection-framework,2019). As well as this learning and exploring in woodland areas and forests, was recognised as a key action in the government’s 25-year Environment Plan, published in 2018 (gov.uk/government/25-year-environment-plan, 2019).
Wellbeing of young people was one of several training needs that were highlighted in the report. Such a strength of opinion may have arisen, it states (Hemery et al, 2019, p21), because of respondents being more aware of an increase in mental health issues among young people. From the survey nearly all respondents strongly agreed with the statements that outdoor learning can improve mental health, enable holistic development, and develop social skills. Therefore, Forest School and outdoor learning of all kinds are ideal to deliver the personal requirements of Ofsted’s new framework. I know that at the school where I teach wellbeing would be seen as the biggest asset of having a Forest School in the grounds and learning and caring about the environment a close second. Among the relatively modest number of woodland owners who took part in the survey, interest in education was strongly evident (Hemert, et al, 2019, p21). Concern expressed among survey participants concerning measuring impacts of outdoor learning on mental wellbeing suggests as the paper states “some interesting possibilities for new research, plus better guidance and more partnership between mental health and outdoor learning sectors.” (Hemery et al, 2019, p22).
The theme of wellbeing and the benefits it brings is the main focus and aim of the second research study that I shall look at. I am glad and encouraged that it was highly sited within the huge amount of data gathered in the Bringing Children Closer to Nature survey as this is my link which relates both pieces of research to one another. I would now like to go on to analyse and summarise my second piece of research entitled Impacts of long Term Forest School Programmes on Children’s Resilience, Confidence and Wellbeing (Blackwell, 2015, England).
Research Paper 2: Impacts of long Term Forest School Programmes on Children’s Resilience, Confidence and Wellbeing (Blackwell, 2015, England).
The second research paper that I would like to discuss is a little bit older than the first and was published in 2015. The paper was written by Sarah Blackwell who is the founder and CEO of Forest Schools Education and Archimedes Earth. I chose this piece of research not only because it discusses something I am very interested in but I also wanted to read and find out more about her work and the Archimedes Forest School. This piece of research is very different from the first as it is based on qualitative data. It uses what Blackwell terms as illuminative evaluation (Blackwell, 2015, p2) which is a study based on an extensive evaluation of previous research that focused on the topic:
“this research study analysed articles, research studies and case studies on outdoor learning and then evaluated the impacts of long term Forest School programmes on children’s resilience, confidence and wellbeing”(Blackwell, 2015, p2)
Qualitative data is very different in form from quantitative data as it sets out to understand, describe and explain social phenomena from the “inside” by:
“…analysing experiences of individuals, practices by using everyday knowledge, accounts and stories. By analysing interactions and communications…based on observations, documents or similar traces of experiences or interactions” (Flick, 2007, pix)
Blackwell explains why she has chosen this research approach because as she asserts:
“The subject of this research study is unique, requiring meanings and understanding rather than proof.”(Blackwell, 2015, p32)
The aims of this study were to establish “the impacts of long term forest school programmes on children’s resilience, confidence and wellbeing,” (Blackwell, 2015, p2).
For the purpose of this study, long term Forest School program runs for a minimum period of 9 to 12 months (Blackwell, 2015, p31). Although there has been extensive research to investigate the effects of Forest School programmes on children’s confidence, resilience and wellbeing, the majority of studies, as Blackwell writes, “focussed on the short term impacts.”(Blackwell, 2015, p31).
This study found that long term Forest School programmes do have positive impacts on children’s resilience, confidence and wellbeing. Blackwell conducts a long detailed evaluation to make this point. She starts this paper by giving an overview of Forest Schools and the main learning approaches and principles:
“The concept of Forest Schools is founded on the work of various educational theorists who investigated the role of play, nature and the environment on development of positive learning outcomes in children”(Blackwell, 2015, p6)
The paper then goes on to take a deeper look at the following learning approaches; Inquiry based emergent and experiential learning (Blackwell, 2015, p8), Play based learning (Blackwell, 2015,p8), Placed based learning (Blackwell, 2015, p9) Storytelling, (Blackwell, 2015,p9) and Loose Parts (Blackwell, 2015, p10).
“Forest schools approaches are child cantered and they aim at developing the child holistically and transform their understanding of themselves, others and the world around them.”(Blackwell, 2015, p8)
The Impacts of Forest Schools on children (Blackwell, 2015,p11) is the next section of Blackwell’s research which discusses and sites many studies that have documented the benefits of outdoor learning to children’s physical, intellectual and social development. In this section the decline of children’s outdoor play that Maynard (Blackwell, 2015, p11) reported on is highlighted and in this study the trend for passive indoor activities, such as computer games, video and television is documented. The close connection that Munoz (Blackwell, 2015, p12) found between the health of learners and outdoor exposure is also drawn on as is Fjortoft (Blackwell, 2015, p12) and research on the free movement in children which is the most natural and crucial method used by children to learn. Hinkley, Crawford, Salmon, Okely and Hesketh (Blackwell, 2015, p13) also found that children always seek physical challenges in their play, an observation attributed to the children’s need for extending their physical abilities and their independence.
The paper then moves on to examine the meaning of resilience, wellbeing and confidence in the context of children and the youth. Resilience is defined as being:
“…the ability of an individual to adapt to change and stressful situations successfully, in a healthy and constructive manner. Resilience does not necessarily mean that a person is not vulnerable to stress, but has the capacity to cope with the adverse events.”(Blackwell, 2015, p13)
Empirical research studies as Blackwell assets have demonstrated that resilience can be enhanced through a contact with the natural environment. A study that is used to reinforce this point was conducted by Horseman (Blackwell, 2015, p14) in a Forest School in the United Kingdom. This study found that students who had low levels of resilience and emotional wellbeing improved their resilience and emotional strength after participating in the Forest School programme (Blackwell, 2015, p14).
Blackwell sites many research studies that Forest Schools programes build resilience in children not just because of the environment but also the freedom to make decisions, use tools and develop their interpersonal skills.
“As children develop a sense of control over their own lives and a feeling of being useful to the community, enhances their resilience.”(Blackwell, 2015, p18)
The study then moves on to discuss, Learner Wellbeing (Blackwell, 2015, p18).Wellbeing is defined as:
“….more than just the physical and mental health of the child, young person or adult. It refers to the intricate connection of the emotional, social, interpersonal, mental and physical health of children and young people in addition to their involvement in learning and in life experiences”(Blackwell, 2015, p19)
Children’s wellbeing and resilience are closely interrelated and are influenced greatly by internal and external factors as Blackwell states (Blackwell, 2015, p19). Forest Schools offer an ideal environment for fostering children’s development of resilience and wellbeing as they use the strength based approach “the method focuses on building on the capabilities and resources of young people and children”(Blackwell, 2015, p21).
According to Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi a strength based approach is founded on:
“….positive psychology, where great emphasis is placed on promoting the strengths, capacities and other positive attributes of the individual that help them flourish rather than the usual approach of focusing on what is wrong and then rectifying the anomaly.”(Blackwell, 2015, p21)
Forest school programmes are ideal for implementing this positive psychology approach because:
“….the emphasis is on the provision of physical and psychological safety, building supportive and meaningful relationships within that community, offering opportunities for learners to feel and develop a sense of belonging and opportunities for building skills.”(Blackwell, 2015, p22)
This section of the study then goes on to use other evidence and sources that make the case for Forest School promotion of wellbeing, some of these are; positive teacher/learner relationships, positive peer relationships, home/school relationships and wider community development.
The closing of this section on wellbeing draws together all of the evidence and summaries stating:
“Wellbeing is enhanced when abilities and strength of the learner meet with opportunity…..This can occur during Forest School programmes where learners can find meaning and purpose for their existence is paramount for the development of resilience and wellbeing.”(Blackwell, 2015, p28)
The final part of Blackwell’s research looks at Student confidence. A lot of studies have been carried out to investigate the impact of nature on confidence in children. In one study that is shared, by Kellert and Derr (Blackwell, 2015, p28) it is found that children reported an:
“…increased sense of personal autonomy and an improved self-confidence which enhanced their decisiveness after participating in Forest School programmes”(Blackwell, 2015, p29).
In another study discussed, Kaplan and Talbot (Blackwell, 2015, p29) found that:
“youth and children who participated in wilderness challenges reported improved self-confidence, feelings of self-control, enhanced ability to concentrate and a positive outlook and a decreased level of anxiety after participating in these nature programmes.” (Blackwell, 2015, p29)
Blackwell writes that the main defining characteristics of confidence in children is self belief which comes when they are given the liberty, freedom, time and space to learn and show their self-determination (Blackwell, 2015, p29). The main characteristic, that is referred to over and over again is frequent regular sessions over a lengthy period of time. It is the familiarity with the environment and established routines that offer a framework of stability, reliability and security (Blackwell, 2015, p29). The professional training of provision practitioners in Forest Schools means that well established structures to manage risks outdoors is in place. The overall impacts of these established routines and freedoms to take risks, as Blackwell states “develop positive behaviours that demonstrate improved self-confidence and self belief in their capabilities.” (Blackwell, 2015, p30). Finally, in this section Blackwell discusses the work of Taylor and colleagues which affirms that:
“…learning in nature enhances the development of three critical forms of self-discipline, which improves self confidence in children and adults. These forms of self-discipline include delaying gratification, concentrating and inhibiting impulses”(Blackwell, 2015, p31).
Blackwell’s qualitative research method provides a very in-depth and detailed understanding of the pedagogical foundations of Forest School as well as highlighting the long term effects on children. The research question is discussed in full and I have found it very interesting to read and discover more about other research projects and case studies. All of the secondary sources used were ethically collated and synthesised in a refined way and this made it easy to follow the investigation. My own understanding has been deepened and grown through this illuminated evaluation and I have discovered other papers and research projects that I would now like to do further reading on.
There are of course limitations to this research paper the main one being the vested interest that Sarah Blackwell has to the research she conducted. She has a business and a personal link related to the theme. Forest School offers an alternative form of education and the strong well founded claims of the impact of this approach on resilience, wellbeing and confidence is a selling point. Therefore, the secondary sources picked fit the arguments aim and no alternative counter argument is engaged or shared. The case may well be that there is no evidence around, that argues against the strong claims of Forest School programmes on resilience, wellbeing and confidence. Most research that is available has been conducted by Forest School practitioners who believe fully in the principles and programme so this is probable. The qualitative researcher is the primary instrument for data and analysis and data is as Atieno asserts:
“.. mediated through this human instrument, rather than through inventories, questionnaires.”(Atieno, 2009, p5)
However, this is the very nature of a qualitative research project and this type of study, as Blackwell clearly points out, is concerned primarily with process, rather than outcomes or products. Qualitative analysis is a complete, detailed description (Atieno, 2009, p5) and no attempt should be made to assign frequencies. Research is not tested to discover whether the findings are statistically significant or due to chance (Atieno, 2009, p5).
I have found it very interesting to evaluate and summarise two very different research projects which use very different ethical methods to collect data however, they both resonate a similar theme and have comparable findings and arguments. I would now like to go on to compare and contrast both of these papers and then conclude with the main findings of them both.
Comparing both research studies
Both pieces of research are of course very different in form and style however, they do complement and extend each other. What one piece of research cannot achieve because of the data collection method, when read together they can be seen to complete the picture and fill in the gaps. For example in the findings in Bringing children closer to nature, Report of a survey on Forest School and outdoor learning in England (Hemery et al, 2019, England) it is stated that the survey participants felt that the area of mental health and outdoor learning provided “some interesting possibilities for new research” (Hemery et al, 2019,p 22) and this is exactly what Blackwell has done in her research. The survey also showed that participants realised the power of Forest School and outdoor learning on mental health and wellbeing and saw it as an ideal means to deliver the personal and social requirements of Ofsted’s new framework (gov.uk/education-inspection-framework,2019) and the government’s 25-year Environment Plan (gov.uk/government/25-year-environment-plan, 2019). Many comments were repeatedly sited within the huge amount of data gathered that emphasised the respondent’s opinions on the importance and impact on children of long-term, regular Forest School sessions to enable connection with the natural world(Blackwell, 2015, p19). This is something that is at the heart of Blackwell’s paper as it stressed the importance of long term programmes in the developing resilience, well being and confidence. Most schools that ran Forest Schools in England according to the survey had a Level 3 trained Leader, “one-third (30%) of school respondents practiced Forest School”(Hemery et al,2015, p20) as there is a requirement for this qualification to run Forest School sessions. Blackwell also stresses the importance of having a trained Level 3 practitioner as they are skilled in establishing structures and routines that allow children the freedom to take and manage risks and “develop positive behaviours that demonstrate improved self-confidence and self belief in their capabilities.” (Blackwell, 2015, p30).
Both studies have helped me to develop my understanding of what it is I need to take into consideration when I set up my own Forest School and have been very useful in different ways and yet they share similar aims. I would now like to share what I will take away from my comparison research study and what I see as my next steps as a result of my readings.
In Conclusion
Both studies concluded that there were a myriad of positive benefits and impacts of long term forest school sessions for children especially in the area of mental health and wellbeing. I definitely believe this to be true and from my own experience of teaching in England and Internationally I have observed first-hand the powerful connection that children can develop in a natural environment both with themselves, others and with nature. I also have observed the many ways in which outdoor learning calms and at the same time excites children and the conversations and learning that takes place in an outdoor classroom are magical and unique. These are the reasons behind why I have started this journey in becoming a Level 3 Forest School practitioner myself and these two papers have confirmed my own beliefs. While I was reading I found myself agreeing with all of the data collected from both qualitative and quantitative research approaches. I was not surprised by what I read, the qualitative data helped me to understand the reasons behind the impact of long term Forest School programmes on children’s resilience, confidence and wellbeing (Blackwell, 2015). While the quantitative data made me realise that I am not alone in the issues I face concerning the barriers and opportunities in establishing and sustaining Forest School practice. Reflecting on the information gathered from both papers these are the main issues that I will need to address and think about in the future:
· Forest School has the most profound impact when it takes place over a long period of time
· The principles and approaches to learning in Forest School naturally promote wellbeing and health in children
· Forest School address the new Ofsted framework which includes a category to judge how schools help learners to keep themselves mentally and physically healthy and the government’s 25 year environment plan.
· It is important to have the core support from the school Head Teacher, leadership teams and whole school staff
· Forest school provisions for secondary schools is very low
· There is a relatively low proportion of Forest Schools taking place in deprived schools
· Most Forest Schools within education take place within the school grounds as funding is a barrier for setting up a Forest School outside of the school site.
I have enjoyed the process of conducting a comparative study on two current pieces of research. The journey I have been on while conducting this essay has helped me to understand the variety of available studies on Forest School practice, their aim, purpose, methodologies, ethics, differences, limitations and values. I am becoming a more reflective practitioner who now has a better understanding of the impact of Forest School on health and wellbeing .
Comments