Creating Bushcraft Teaching Resources and Proving it's Value in Environmental Education

A key part of my personal development as a bushcraft instructor and probably the catalyst to my interest in Bushcraft as a tool in formal education was a project I carried out a few years ago as part of my studies at University;

RESEARCH INTO THE RELEVANCE OF ‘BUSHCRAFT’ WITHIN REAL WORLD ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION

Indigenous peoples have within the context of their own lifestyles been practicing ‘environmental education’ for thousands of years (Sterling 2001), but although the skills practiced by indigenous peoples survive in remote areas of the globe those skills have in our modern society been tagged as ‘bushcraft’ and become little more than an adventurous free time activity or a topic of interesting TV documentaries. Several case studies have made the observation that the effectiveness of environmental education could be increased by the inclusion of ‘free time’ and adventurous activities within environmental education programs (Cooper 1998). The purpose of this research was to establish the value of bushcraft within environmental education not only as an additional adventurous element to a program but as a relevant part of a course with appropriate links with the curriculum. As a result of this research it was hoped that a curriculum could be prepared for a number of bushcraft sessions which could be used within formal education to meet some objectives of a course rather than just being an enrichment activity.


The full write up of this project and my conclusions can be found here;
http://www.academia.edu/4748355/RESEARCH_INTO_THE_RELEVANCE_OF_BUSHCRAFT_WITHIN_REAL_WORLD_ENVIRONMENTAL_EDUCATION

An Introduction to Forest Schools

Discussion and Review of Current Forest School Philosophy and Aims in light of its recent Historical Development. 

The roots of what we in England now know as Forest Schools can be traced back to Scandinavia, ‘Friluftsliv’ literally ‘fresh air life’ was originally a Norwegian expression and is a concept deeply ingrained in their culture (Knight 2009). ‘Friluftsliv’ is also an integral part of the Swedish national curriculum; this approach is extended to all age groups in Scandinavia including the pre-school age group with ‘skogsmulle’ in Sweden and ‘Naturbørnehaven’ in Denmark.

Skogsmulle

The Swedish approach to Forest School style programs for pre-school children began in 1957 with Gösta Frohm (Joyce 2004)who at the time was head of the Swedish Society for Outdoor Life (Friluftsfrämjandet). He believed that from a very early age children should have opportunities to learn about sustainability and the environment (Joyce 2004).

Bringing Forest School to the UK

" The children set their own agenda, cook [on open fires], listen to storytelling, sing songs, and explore at their own level. They are able to climb very high into the trees on rope ladders and swings, and sit and whittle sticks with knives, alone " (Trout 2004).

This was an observation made during the trip to Denmark in 1994 by the early years department of Bridgewater College which began the formal development of Forest Schools in this country.  Within the UK forest schools expanded slowly, with the nursery at Bridgewater running forest school sessions, and later with Edexcel as their examinations board developing a suite of courses to transmit the forest school ethos (Knight 2009) and train new practitioners. However it was not until 2002 that a large organisation endorsed Forest Schools, it was then that The Forestry Commission stated “access to green space is not just about ‘the environment’. For young children there is perceived to be great benefit in teaching most subjects in a natural environment” (O’Brien, Tabbush, 2002).   Since then Forest Schools had continued to find favour in this country and throughout the world, Skogsmulle schools are found in Japan, Latvia, Russia, Germany, Norway, and Finland (Joyce 2004) and within the UK there are now dozens of providers of Forest Schools programs and training for practitioners.

Although there are now many well established providers of Forest Schools throughout the country the aims and ethos of Forest Schools is not always compatible with modern attitudes towards the outdoors and education.  Many parents and other well-meaning individuals have developed an attitude of ‘risk avoidance’   rather than one of trying to help children self-manage and approach activities that may be viewed as ‘risky’ themselves and learn to deal with those situations. Instead we as a society are now incapable of dealing with risks and have implemented unnecessary safety measures to avoid them, often at the expense of freedom and enjoyment (Gill 2007). Some of the activities involved in Forest Schools can be perceived as risky even something as harmless as ‘playing in the woods’ is not something that every child can do anymore. Forest Schools are a good way of redressing this balance and hopefully parents will feel more comfortable about their children taking part in activities in the woods and countryside as part of a Forest School course where there is less perceived risk if not on their own. This will be discussed more in the following essay on the Forest School leader’s role.

With regard to the curriculum and summative assessment led nature of modern education Forest Schools with its very open learner centred approach does not quite fit in, or at least has a niche all of it’s own. The fact that a learner will not finish a Forest School course with a recognised qualification and that there is no funding to be had for an institution for learners who take part in Forest Schools courses  makes Forest Schools an investment on the part of many institutions which they will see no financial gain from. This may be an issue for many institutions and although there are organisations which support Forest Schools such as the Forestry Commission, Woodland Trusts and some local authority’s this lack of funding may be a hindrance for many who would otherwise be involved in Forest Schools.

Philosophy and Aims

The best way to illustrate the philosophy and aims of forest schools is with this diagram:

Figure 1; Friluftremjanded 2006

This diagram focuses on the environmental education aspect of Forest Schools but other areas (and indeed in this country at least the environmental education aspect of Forest Schools would probably be considered secondary to the social development of participants)  of development among Forest Schools Participants may include;

·         Creative development

·         Physical development

·         Maths development

·         Communication, language and listening

·         Personal, social and emotional development

·         Knowledge and understanding of world.

·         (Forest Research 2005)

A Forest Research report on Forest Schools in England included the following which I think summarises very effectively the key features of a Forest School.

·         The use of a woodland (and therefore ‘wild’) setting that is framed by

strict safety routines and established boundaries that allows the flexibility and

freedom for child-initiated (not only issue-led) learning and other innovative

approaches to learning to take place in a low-risk environment. This woodland

setting is important particularly for children from areas of the country where

there is little opportunity for contact with the natural environment.

ƒ

·         Learning can be linked to the national curriculum and foundation stage

objectives whilst setting those objectives in a different context, and it is not

focused just on the natural environment. By incorporating innovative

approaches to learning (such as undertaking small and easily achievable

tasks) children are encouraged to develop their innate curiosity and

motivation to learn. This is particularly important for those who find it difficult

to assimilate knowledge in a strictly ‘classroom’ environment.

ƒ

·         The freedom to explore using multiple senses is fundamental for

encouraging creative, diverse and imaginative play. The focus is on the

‘whole child’ (not just their academic ability) and how they can develop their

own learning styles at their own pace whilst maximising the benefits from

each experience they discover for themselves.

ƒ

·         Regular contact for the children over a significant period of time (e.g. all

year round, in all weathers). Regular can mean anything from fortnightly

during a school term to one morning, afternoon or day every week for twelve

months or more. This is coupled with a clear set of safety routines and

boundaries that allow children to develop a responsible attitude to risk whilst

becoming familiar and confident enough to explore and interact with an everchanging natural environment.

ƒ

·         A high adult to pupil ratio (e.g. Groups are small with approximately twelve

children per session) allows for children to undertake tasks and play activities

that challenge them but do not put them at undue risk of harm. It also allows

practitioners quickly to get to know the individual learning styles, abilities and

characteristics of the children in their charge.

 References 

For a full reference list see my full essay at; http://www.academia.edu/4813212/Forest_School_Essays 

Is our impatience the reason children aren't developing as quickly as they could?

Modern society does expect that children are supervised more closely than they once used to be, they can't walk to school or the shops on their own or play in the woods on their own, there even seems to be a general consensus that getting dirty, picking up worms and slugs and beetles is somehow wrong or dangerous. Yet we are willing to let children play video games or watch TV unsupervised for hours on end, I would argue that a child will far more easily come to harm, perhaps not physically, but harm nonetheless in-front of computers and TV than outside.

As important as an element of freedom is in the life of any child there are occasions when children need supervision, of course there are, but I think too often they are given safe things to do so that we can get on with our busy lives, the ironing needs doing, dinner cooking or a report for work needs finishing or maybe we just want to update our facebook status, so what could be easier than plonking a child down in-front of a cartoon for a couple of hours. But surely they would benefit from being given some 'hard' tasks to accomplish under our supervision that they would really benefit from, if only we had the patience to provide that supervision. I really feel strongly that children should not be denied opportunities to do these things because we don't have the time or can't be bothered to supervise them. Surely our children would develop skills such as hazard perception, dexterity, self reliance and confidence, to name but a few, if we helped and supervised them and then let them do these 'grown up things'.

If only we had the patience to provide appropriate supervision where required we might find that they develop skills which might nowadays be considered beyond the grasp of a younger child; the picture bellow illustrates this perfectly.

This is a picture of an 11 month old Efe baby in the Democratic Republic of Congo cutting fruit with a machete (Rogoff 2003 pg6)

References;

nRogoff B. (2003) The Cultural Nature of Human Development. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Teaching plant life-cycles with Bushcraft

Anual, Perennial, Biennial; there are lots of words to describe the life-cycle and life span of plants. Countryside management students need to have a knowledge of these terms and their meanings if they are to control certain invasive species, the control method may demand that they spray, pull or cut the plant at a certain phase of it's growth,  or plant species beneficial to local wildlife, such as cover crops, wild bird seed mixes or pollen and nectar plots for invertebrates. They will also need to be able to identify the plants at the various stages of it's life-cycle.

One method of illustrating this to students which works very well at this time of year is to take them out foraging for burdock. Burdock is a plant that they should all be familiar with and which they should be able to recognise. It illustrates perfectly the distinction between the first and second year of growth in a biennial plant. The end of the first years growth is the stage at which burdock should be harvested for it's roots and at this phase of it's growth it's leaves will be dying off leaving a large swollen root underground. Before the leaves disapear completely they can be used to locate the root which can then be dug up. During it's second year of growth the plant will have developed a long flowering stalk and will have produced the 'burrs' which give burdock it's name, if you were to dig up the plant at this phase you would find a tough shrivelled root underneth which would not be edible at all.

Foraged Burdock roots after a bit of scrubbing, ready to be baked in a campfire. All these roots came from relatively small burdock plants but as you can see they are quite large. Over the summer the root has become swollen and will provide the plant with the nutrients and energy it requires to survive the winter and continue into it's second year of growth next spring.

Bushcraft Links to UK key stage 2 and 3 Curricula

This table shows links to key stage 2 and 3 Geography and Science curricula with activities devised for a schools 'ecology club', a full description of each of these activities can be found here. 

Activity	Key Stage 2 Curriculum Links	Key Stage 3 Curriculum Links	Activity description  (page number)
Food Webs	Sc 2 (1 b,c, 3 a,b,c 5 a,d,e)	Geog (6 e) Sc2 (4 a,b, 5 b,d,e,f)	2
Each One Teach (Plant)	Sc 2 (1 b,c, 3 a,b,c, 4 a,b,c, 5 b,c)	Geog (6 e) Sc2 (4 a,b)	2
Each One Teach (Animal/Birds)	Sc 2 (1 b,c, 3 a,b,c, 4 a,b.c) (5 b,c)	Geog (6 e) Sc2 (4 a,b, 5 b,d,e)	3
Tracks and Trails	Sc2 (5 a,b,c)	Geog (2 e) Sc2 (4 a,b, 5 b,d,e)	3
Pond Dipping	Geog (1 a,b,c, 7 c) Sc1 (2 a,b,c,d,e,g,I,k,l) Sc2 (4 a,b,c, 5 b,c)	Geog (1 a,b,c,d, 2 b) Sc1 (1a,b, 2 a,b,c,d,e,f,k,l,m,o) Sc2 (4 a,b, 5b,c,d,e)	4
Nature Skits	Sc 2 (5 a,d,e)	Geog (6 e) Sc2 (4 a,b, 5 b,d,e,f)	5
Craft	Sc3 (1 a)	Geog (6 k)	5
The Incredible Journey	Geog (6 c)	Geog (6 d)	5
Scavenger Hunt	Geog (6 e, 7 c)	N/A	6
Map Making	Geog (7 c)	Geog (2 e)	7
Create A Critter	Sc2 (5 a,b,c,d)	N/A	6
Fire Making			10
Shelter Building			13
Camouflage	Sc2 (5 a,b,c,d)	N/A	8
Follow That Log			14
Pollution Tag	Geog (5 a,b, 6 e)	N/A	9
Key Species	Geog (5 a,b, 6 e) Sc2 (5 a,b,c,d)	Geog (3 c,d,e, 5 a, 6 e,j) Sc2 (a,b, 5 b,c,d,e)	9

Why 'risk' and 'danger' are a necesary part of childhood

Some more thoughts on risk and danger in childhood which I wrote to contribute to an online discussion on the 'Key Critiques made in Gills No Fear; growing up in a risk averse society (2006)' as part of my studies towards a Masters Degree in Outdoor Education.

The central argument to Gills 2006 work No Fear; growing up in a risk averse society is the point that in our modern society is at risk of restricting children and young people from exposure to important formative experiences by limiting freedom to take part in self-directed play/leisure activities and increasing levels of supervision. He refers to this phenomenon on page 12 as ‘the shrinking horizons of childhood’. This opinion is shared by many, particularly with regard to children’s opportunities to engage with the natural environment (Louv, 2005). A study by the Countryside Recreation Network titled Taking a Chance Outdoors - Is Fear of Risk Damaging our Children? (2009)  Explains that when questioned “virtually none of the children actually played in the woods…… The woodland was an adventure as much because it was out of reach as it was because of what it offered.” Despite the documented benefits of outdoor activities there seems to be decreasing opportunities for children to be alone and unsupervised in any situation, possibly because it is no longer socially acceptable for parents to allow their children to do things alone (Furedi, 2004). This increasing level of supervision is quantified in One False Move; A study of children’s independent mobility (Hillman, et al., 1993) and Childs Play; Facilitating play on housing estates (Wheway & Millward , 1997)and cited by Gill who explains that in 1971 eight out of ten seven to eight year olds walked to school on their own but by 1990 less than one in ten were walking to school on their own, equating to three years of lost freedom of movement. Gill suggests that that this freedom is being restricted because of a fear that children are at risk either from their environment or from risks posed by other people. He combats this assumption of danger with a quote from Innocence Betrayed; Paedophilia, the media and society (Silverman & Wilson, 2002) “our children are, statistically, at no greater risk in the year 2002 than they were in 1972 of being abducted and killed”.

This lack of unsupervised experiential play is even recognised as a negative by children themselves and Gill quotes Hannan a teenager from Newcastle “kids should be allowed to experiment and try things. Otherwise when they grow up they’ll make very stupid mistakes” and the Better Regulation Commission (2006) agree that “risk can be beneficial and should be encouraged”. In the Adventure Alternative (Mortlock, 1984 , pp. 41-45) investigates the idea that risk bordering on misadventure, as long as the experience is not too traumatic, is extremely beneficial and indeed essential to giving children and young people a real understanding of how to cope with risk and danger. Based on these sources it is my oppinion that without some risk with or without supervision, obviously there should be some supervision for activities where there is a real risk and need for trained supervision such as the examples that Mortlock uses, children and young people are going to miss out on vital formative experiences.   

References

Better Regulation Commission (2006) Risk, Responsibility and Regulation; Whose risk is it anyway?, London: Better Regulation Commission.

Countryside Recreation Network (2009) Taking a chance Outdoors - Is Fear of Risk Damaging Our Children?. s.l., Sheffield Hallam University Press .
 
Furedi, F (2004) Paranoid Parenting. s.l.:Independent on Sunday.

Hillman, M., Adams, J. & Whitelegg, J (1993) One False Move; A study of children's independent mobility. London: Policy Studies Institute .

Louv, R (2005) Last Child in the Woods; Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Chapel Hill : Algonquin Books .

Mortlock, C (1984) The Adventure Alternative. Milnthorpe : Cicerone Press .

Silverman, J. & Wilson, D (2002) Innocence Betrayed; Paedophilia, the media and society. Cambridge: Polity.

Wheway, R. & Millward , A (1997) Childs Play; Facilitating play on housing estates. London: Chartered Institute of Housing.

Rewilding

The concept of rewilding is not new but it is an interesting one, I have spent time in Sweden and New Zealand where things just seem a little wilder, maybe it's the presence of large mammal carnivores in Sweden or the access to vast tracts of land with relatively open access in both countries which makes it seem that way. Monbiot's words about rewilding human life by having access to rewilded habitats make me wonder; why can't project's like the Alladale wilderness reserve in Scotland be allowed a little more scope and support to rewild areas of the highlands? I know there are issues regarding access but no one in Sweden moans or complains or refuses to go to an area where there are bears or wolves and no one in North America refuses to go outside for fear of being trampled by a cow moose protecting it's calf, the fences are necessary to control the release of reintroduced species but you can still grant access to people via styles and gates if they want to camp and walk there.  

It's also not realistic, despite monbiot's suggestion, that we just leave things to themselves. Rewilding is not a case of just stepping back and letting nature take it's course, we have already disrupted natures course so severely that if we are going to 'rewild' we need to carry out some pretty major management to return things to a state in which they would manage themselves. The reintroduction of species already extinct from an isolated area (such as the UK) is an example, you can't leave an area of land and expect these species to reintroduce themselves, we have to be heavily involved and committed (financially as well as emotionally) to projects of this size. Species need to be reintroduced from other countries which requires licences and lots of money and expertise and there may even be a need to selectively breed species to produce an animal that will match the fauna historically found in the area  such as has been attempted with the Heck Cattle which were introduced to the Oostvaardersplassen in the Netherlands. These few points alone show that although the benefits of rewilding as Monbiot expresses them are very important and interesting carrying out that rewilding of ecosystems is not as strait forward or simple as just leaving nature to itself. 

What may be easier to achieve is the rewilding of our own lives, we dont need gigantic elephas antiquus or even the still living Asian elephant to engage with nature, a patch of weeds or a dry stream or canal (Pyle 2011) is enough. The rewilding of our own lives can be done very effectively through bushcraft and other outdoor activities, what could be 'wilder' than living off the land using bushcraft skills as people who would have shared our countryside with the extinct Irish Elk or the spotted hyena's and hippos which Monbiot talks about. 

Before people start thinking about rewilding they need to engage with the habitats we do have, get outdoors and see what nature and wildlife has to offer and then maybe there will be possibilities to fund a rewildling project in the UK.    

References;

Pyle R (2011) The Thunder Tree; Lessons From an Urban Wildland; Oregon State University; Reprint ed.