Special Report: Outdoor Learning - Research evidence

Study 1
The Existing Evidence-Base About the Effectiveness of Outdoor Learning

Caroline Fiennes, Elizabeth Oliver, Kelly Dickson, Diego Escobar, Amy Romans, Sandy Oliver (2015)

This research commissioned by the Institute for Outdoor Learning (IOL) and Blagrave Trust, aimed to understand the effectiveness of the various types of outdoor learning programmes. The research aimed to:

Measuring impact
A systematic review of the existing literature about outdoor learning was carried out by searching the academic literature and inviting submissions of research from outdoor learning organisations. The review was guided by a steering group with members drawn from provider and research organisations.

Comparison of reports of UK studies in terms of attributes was carried out using a scale developed by Project Oracle, which looks at the extent of plans for an intervention and the evidence for it.

Key findings

Key findings were split into four main themes:

The sector as a whole

There is no comprehensive or regular (repeated) survey of the scale of outdoor learning in the UK. There are some studies of specific outdoor learning activities – by type of activity or part of the UK. In these, some authors express concern about barriers to delivering outdoor learning and a reduction in outdoor learning.

The current research base

Crowdsourcing UK research revealed an enthusiasm for research and sharing of knowledge among people who deliver outdoor learning activities. However, some of the material submitted was data or reflections that included named individuals, rather than anonymised research reports. This raised issues around practitioners’ understanding of research ethics.

There is a growing body of individual studies, and 15 systematic reviews, providing evidence of the effects of outdoor learning. However, the set is somewhat confusing because many of them overlap in terms of the primary studies they include. Moreover, some systematic reviews include findings from other systematic reviews, or are an update of an earlier review. This overlap therefore repeatedly reports the same evidence without necessarily strengthening it.

In total, 58 primary UK studies were found. Three features of them were striking: