J.

CURRICULUM STUDIES, 2013

Vol. 45, No. 3, 418–440, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.689863

Analysing attempts to support outdoor learning in

Scottish schools

MALCOLM THORBURN and PETER ALLISON

The new ‘Curriculum for Excellence’ in Scotland outlines a policy vision of a more inte-
grated and holistic form of education; a commitment which offers considerable prospects
for increased levels of outdoor learning in schools. With reference to Fullan’s theorizing
on achieving educational change, this study investigated four main implementation areas,
namely: policy aims, partnerships arrangements, and associated professionalism and sus-
tainability issues. Evidence was collected through a series of 16 semi-structured inter-
views with key stakeholders at national, local authority, and school level. Despite
increased agreement on aims, it was found that improving the frequency and quality of
outdoor learning in schools was adversely influenced by the patchwork nature of partner-
ship support at national and local authority levels. This has curtailed the prioritizing of
outdoor learning in schools and of teachers being supported when trying to make use of
their increased curriculum decision-making responsibilities. Thus, only limited evidence
was found of policy-related innovation and considerable evidence of policy stasis. As
such, building national capacity is proving difficult. It is concluded that further research
on how some atypical schools have managed to develop their programmes offers the best
prospects for understanding the complexities of achieving greater levels of outdoor
learning.

Keywords: curriculum enrichment; policy formation; partnership in

education; change strategies; outdoor learning.

Introduction

The new overarching ‘Curriculum for Excellence’ (CfE) guidelines

encourage teachers to make full use of their increased professional
autonomy and decision-making responsibilities to review the curriculum
planning and pedagogical possibilities of implementing high quality
teaching interventions which can inspire learners (Learning and Teach-
ing Scotland 2008). Specific CfE through Outdoor Learning (CfEtOL)
guidelines provide a rationale and support advice for increasing schools

Malcolm Thorburn is a Lecturer in Physical Education at the Moray House School of Edu-
cation, University of Edinburgh at St Leonard’s Land, Holyrood Road, Edinburgh EH8
8AQ, UK; e-mail: [email protected]. His main research interests are on policy-
making processes and issues of professional change for teachers, especially in terms of cur-
riculum planning and pedagogical practices. He is the author (with S. Gray) of Physical
Education: Picking up the baton. Policy & Practice in Education (Edinburgh: Dunedin Aca-
demic Press, 2010).
Peter Allison is a Senior Lecturer in Education at the Moray House School of Education,
University of Edinburgh. His main interests are in values and experiential learning across
a range of different contexts including expeditions, formal education and curriculum, sail
training, and mountaineering. He is Deputy Director of Post Graduate Studies in the
School and responsible for Masters level research methods courses.
Ó 2013 Taylor & Francis
ATTEMPTS TO SUPPORT OUTDOOR LEARNING IN SCOTTISH SCHOOLS 419

involvement in outdoor learning (Learning and Teaching Scotland

2010). At face value, the prospects for learning outdoors have rarely
been better. However, achieving change in education is rarely straight-
forward and implementing CfEtOL will be dependent upon various
stakeholders’ management of their professional remits. Adding to the
difficulty of achieving change is noting that a recent report of career-
long teacher education in Scotland makes no mention whatsoever of
outdoor learning as might have been expected, for example, when iden-
tifying the core themes of professional development (Scottish Govern-
ment 2011). As all 50 report recommendations have been accepted by
the Scottish Government, there is unease about how the specific aspira-
tions of CfEtOL can be realized without becoming overshadowed by
more generic recommendations to do with raising standards (particularly
in Mathematics and Science) and improving basic skills. In brief, quite
how policy goals can be realized in outdoor learning raises a number of
broad challenges. The paper intends to review these challenges by ana-
lysing the change process associated with CfEtOL by interpreting data
from stakeholder interviews at each of the main levels of reform and
through reviewing national and international developments in outdoor
learning.

Achieving change in schools

Increasingly, nation states position curriculum reform within a broader

societal context, where education systems are considered to have the
capacity to bring about change (McKernan 2008). In this context, we
believe there is a need to investigate how outdoor learning might be rec-
ognized for its educational contribution and for its wider value to the
development of civic society. In studies of achieving change in education
in recent decades the work of Michael Fullan (see, for example, Fullan
1993, 1999, 2003) has been particularly influential. Fullan’s step-by-step
focus is often on understanding stakeholders’ views on why fundamentally
good ideas have such difficulty in becoming established practice (Datnow
2006). Fullan’s concern is that theories of educational change, to date,
are incomplete as they often lack an adequate focus on pedagogical
change and of the positive benefits of reform across schools (Fullan
2006a). At this stage, Fullan’s premises for change are considered helpful
in providing our research with ‘a sense of the importance of linkages in
systematic reform’ (Datnow 2006: 134). This is an important consider-
ation given the potential of CfEtOL to help stakeholders plan integrated
learning experiences which
… can be enjoyable, creative, challenging and adventurous and help chil-
dren and young people learn by experience and grow as confident and
responsible citizens who value and appreciate the spectacular landscapes,
natural heritage and culture of Scotland. (Learning and Teaching Scotland
2010: 5)
420 M. THORBURN AND P. ALLISON

Such learning opportunities offer pupils the chance to ‘deepen and con-
textualize their understanding within curriculum areas, and for linking
learning across the curriculum in different contexts’ (Learning and Teach-
ing Scotland 2010: 9). In short, CfEtOL documentation conveys an
approach to learning which is consistent with developing an integrated
curriculum and helping to enable those involved in education to see con-
nections between what have often been treated as discreet subjects.
The seven core premises which underpin Fullan’s (2006a, b) change
theory are: a focus on motivation; potential for capacity building; tri-level
engagement; learning in context; changing context; a bias for reflective
action; and persistence and flexibility. Briefly, it is longer term motivation
for deep and permanent meaning and not shorter superficial motivation,
i.e. partial enthusiasm for the latest educational ‘fad’ which is desirable.
Potential for capacity building refers to the internal accountability benefits
gained when teachers collectively strive for the positive ‘pressure’ of
improving effectiveness rather than responding more negatively to external
accountability pressures, e.g. school inspection visits. The third premise is
on the benefits of tri-level reform, where the role and strategies of school/
community, local authority, and national government stakeholders are all
connected in terms of how support and negotiation between change
agents can occur. The fourth premise (learning in context) is that reform
interventions must be authentically developed and modelled on familiar
school learning contexts. Little sustained change will be gained if learning
and exemplification is detached and unfamiliar to teachers. The focus of
changing context is that ideas will flow better and teachers will be more
highly motivated when operating collectively within a large infrastructure,
e.g. in a community of local authority schools, especially if negative influ-
ences on changing context such as burdensome bureaucracy can be
avoided. The essence of a bias for reflective action is that it is ‘thinking
about doing’, which is most important and that less change will occur
when the focus for reflection is on ‘the size and prettiness of the planning
document’ (Fullan 2006a: 10). The final premise is that persistence and
flexibility is required to cope with the inevitable highs and lows of imple-
menting change. In this respect, displaying adequate flexibility to refine
ideas in light of reflections on practice is necessary.
Datnow (2006) supports the idea of tri-level investigations, as most
prior theorizing has focused on school level factors to the detriment of
adequately considering the influence of infrastructure improvements at
local authority and national levels as well. We concur with this view, but
also consider in our study that distinguishing between central government
representatives, e.g. Learning and Teaching Scotland and the Scottish
Government, viz. associated partners at national level, e.g. the Forestry
Commission, the Duke of Edinburgh (DofE) award scheme, the John
Muir Trust, and the Outward Bound Trust, who are governed by a vari-
ety of charitable trust arrangements, is necessary. By separately defining
two levels of national level stakeholder, there is a recognition that in
particular areas of the curriculum such as CfEtOL, schools, and their
existing management structures can no longer do it all by themselves and
ATTEMPTS TO SUPPORT OUTDOOR LEARNING IN SCOTTISH SCHOOLS 421

that improved multi-partnership working is required (Learning and

Teaching Scotland 2010).
Through researching the connections between change theory and
school outdoor learning interventions which are planned or underway, we
contend that our research offers the prospect of contributing to theory
generation in an area of outdoor education where there are few compara-
ble studies. In taking forward our main aim we are buoyed by noting that
many of Fullan’s studies involve analysis of countries with similar popula-
tion sizes and topography to Scotland, e.g. Finland with  5 million
inhabitants which has, as Fullan asserts, been able to ‘turn itself around
through a combination of vision and society-wide commitment’ (Fullan
2009: 107). Lingard (2008: 975) concurs that ‘Finland has become a ref-
erence society in terms of educational performance for most nations on
the planet’, and acknowledges that Scotland in many ways aspires towards
a Scandinavian model of public policy where there is an on-going small
nation commitment to comprehensive schooling and a rejection of market
approaches in education. However, Lingard (2008) also recognizes that
marked differences in social welfare and educational provision in Scotland
continue to lead to inequalities in ways which might make delivering on a
CfE vision of education problematic to provide.

Models of curriculum planning

The origins of the partnership model of curriculum planning reflect con-

cerns that neither the ‘top down’ model with its emphasis on limiting
teachers direct influence on the selection of aims, content knowledge, and
assessment instruments, and the opposite ‘bottom up’ model with its
heavy emphasis on teacher as change agent have been entirely successful
(Macdonald 2003, Seikkula-Leino 2011). In the infancy of CfE it was
expected that the new curriculum guidelines offered the chance for greater
curriculum flexibility and teacher experimentation. However, more recent
critical analysis has led to concerns that such aspirations might not be
achieved and that learning could become ‘predictable, limited and uncrea-
tive’ (Priestley and Humes 2010: 358).
Given these circumstances, there appears much to be gained from
analysing how new partnership approaches might enhance greater cross-
boundary collaborations between stakeholders (Fullan 1999). Certainly
such intentions are planned under CfEtOL, where policy ambitions aim
to provide greater school-based learning which is socially constructed and
experiential in nature as well as endorsing the contrasting benefits of resi-
dential experiences where ‘different sets of learning outcomes’ (Learning
and Teaching Scotland 2010: 16) might be aspired towards. Despite these
expectations, Seikkula-Leino (2011: 74) advise that, to date, ‘there are no
studies about how partnership is realized on a wider scale, for example,
about interactive cooperation within a municipality or about the relation-
ships between a municipality and the central government’. Therefore,
understanding more about how partnerships develop is an important area
to research, for, as Seikkula-Leino (2011) notes, trying to understand
422 M. THORBURN AND P. ALLISON

partnerships models from the perspective of a range of educational part-

ners is crucial in informing reviews of progress.

Curriculum for excellence and outdoor learning in

Scotland

New devolutionary governmental powers for Scotland in 1999 were used

by the Scottish legislature to consult on the national state of school edu-
cation in 2002. The debate confirmed that teaching was professionally
conducted and provided a clear endorsement for a comprehensive rather
than a more specialist model of schooling. Nevertheless, there were
demands for a de-cluttering of curriculum and for a more personalized,
holistic, and better connected range of experiences to support pupils
learning. Against this backdrop, Education Ministers established a Curric-
ulum Group in 2003 to review the findings of the national debate as well
as considering the global factors which might impact on education aims
and purposes in future years. This led to the policy launch of CfE (Scot-
tish Executive 2004), and the emphasis thereafter on achieving greater
coherence across the 3–18 age range, with learning goals framed by four
defining capacities; namely for pupils to become ‘successful learners’,
‘confident individuals’, ‘effective contributors’, and ‘responsible citizens’.
Humes (2008: 74) notes that the ‘narrative privilege’ afforded to the
patronage-based policy-making community helped ensure that CfE
became widely accepted and endorsed in its entirety by the Scottish Exec-
utive. As such, it was never ‘subject to systematic debate by parliament,
public, or the education community in Scotland’ (Gillies 2006: 25) as
might have been expected in terms of good governance and academic
scrutiny.
Even though CfE is viewed ‘as a landmark development in Scottish
education’ (Priestley and Humes 2010: 345), the very title ‘CfE’ is not
without its difficulties, as it potentially misled many teachers into expect-
ing that many of the features they could expect of a curriculum, e.g. defi-
nitions over content knowledge and of how more holistic approaches to
learning could operate in practice would be available. However, this was
rarely the case, with the outlining of policy aims being more of a broad
declaration of ambition set within a flexible curriculum framework
(Priestley 2010). Furthermore, the term ‘excellence’ can also be problem-
atic, as the emphasis on achieving excellence contains the possibility that
a narrow focus on assessment will dominate teaching time at the expense
of more innovative approaches to learning (Gillies 2007). Therefore, while
CfE is an example of decentralized planning where schools, headteachers,
and teachers have increased control for designing holistically-inclined
learning experiences it is also a curriculum where set age and stage out-
comes in subject areas are expected to be achieved.
Under CfE no major structural changes are planned. School educa-
tion will continue to be dominated by primary schools for pupils
between 5–12 years and secondary schools which last for all pupils
until 16 years old, with 60% of pupils opting to stay in secondary
ATTEMPTS TO SUPPORT OUTDOOR LEARNING IN SCOTTISH SCHOOLS 423

schools until 18 years old (Thorburn et al. 2009). Since the announce-
ment of the CfE policy aims, emphasis and attention has been primar-
ily on articulating how the four capacities can be developed through
learning in specific curriculum areas. These include the relatively famil-
iar areas of language, mathematics, science, expressive arts, social stud-
ies, technologies, religious and moral education, along with the new
disciplinary area of health and wellbeing. Furthermore, in three particu-
lar areas (literacy, numeracy, and health and wellbeing) the interdisci-
plinary nature of learning is one where the policy aspiration is that
every teacher has a responsibility in these areas (Learning and Teaching
Scotland 2009b).
Within outdoor learning, in particular, during the early years of CfE
an ‘Outdoor Connections’ initiative (Learning & Teaching Scotland
2005) aimed to provide a national point of reference for raising aware-
ness as well as proposing through the ‘Taking Learning Outdoors’
report (Learning and Teaching Scotland 2007) that development officer
and steering group support could help advise teachers on how outdoor
learning opportunities could be increased. Later, in August 2008, the
Scottish Executive set up the Outdoor Learning Strategic Advisory
Group (OLSAG) to provide implementation advice and leadership on
learning beyond the classroom which was consistent with the experi-
ences and outcomes of the new 3–18 curriculum. One of the main
achievements of OLSAG (which met for the last time in March 2010)
was the production of the CfEtOL advice and guidance which was sub-
sequently distributed to every school in Scotland. Therefore, the policy
intention is to ‘signpost ways for teachers, educators and their partners
to plan and use the outdoor environment to provide imaginative learn-
ing and teaching which is relevant, lively and interesting’ (Learning and
Teaching Scotland 2010: 5–6). To help in this respect, a new online
resource centre and self-evaluation guide has been developed by the
national agency for curriculum development (Learning and Teaching
Scotland) to support CfEtOL. Coinciding with these later initiatives has
been the appointment of two outdoor learning development officers
between April 2010 and March 2011 (with one of the posts being
extended to August 2011). The officers had responsibility for organizing
a series of awareness-raising presentations and workshops for key stake-
holders in each of Scotland’s 32 local authorities as well as exemplify-
ing best practice by showcasing new interventions via the online
support centre.
Under these arrangements outdoor learning is designed to support the
new holistic curriculum intentions in a variety of ways, e.g. through mak-
ing greater connections with literacy, numeracy, and health and wellbeing.
Early studies report that such challenges should not be under-estimated.
For example, Cowan and McMurty (2009) found that general CfE pol-
icy-making developments have had to recognize the limited ways in which
cross-curriculum initiatives have permeated curriculum in recent years,
particularly in secondary schools, where there has often been the retention
of learning ‘in’ specific subjects rather than ‘through’ more integrated
approaches, with an emphasis on experiential and problem-based
424 M. THORBURN AND P. ALLISON

learning. In addition, the limited availability of professional development

and access to suitable support materials has often been considered
unsatisfactory (Priestley 2010). Thus, despite support documentation try-
ing to highlight how outcomes might be achieved in various interdisciplin-
ary curriculum contexts (Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009a),
CfEtOL could well be subject to similar curriculum integration problems
unless the added momentum created by raising awareness of outdoor
learning possibilities is aided by support materials and training
opportunities. In this respect, how effective stakeholders consider the 26
page CfEtOL report to be in informing change agendas and in supporting
professional development and new pedagogical practices is essential to
review.

Outdoor learning: National and international

comparisons

In England two recent reports by the Council for Learning Outside the
Classroom (King’s College London 2010, 2011) have reviewed the bene-
fits and barriers to greater learning outdoors. Report findings mention a
plethora of concerns on young people’s dwindling connections with the
natural environment. These include the often-cited difficulties of safety,
cost, and curriculum pressures, but also the identification of further
challenges at local, school, and personal levels. These include teachers’
‘confidence, self-efficacy, and their access to training in using natural
environments close to the school and further afield’ (King’s College
London 2010: 2). The sum of these multi-various concerns is highlighted
in further recommendations for greater collaboration between providers
(partners), additional staff support in schools, and the advancement of a
‘compelling rationale’ which sets out evidence of impact for schools and
pupils (King’s College London 2010: 2). These actions could lessen the
current chance nature of whether particular schools and teachers include
learning outdoors in their curriculum.
Outdoor education has also been a formal part of the curriculum in
New Zealand since 1999. It is one of seven specific learning areas within
‘Health and Physical Education’ as well as being included in curriculum
statements in Science, Social Studies, Environmental Education, and
Technology (Zink and Boyes 2006). Collectively the policy message and
language emphasis (as in England) is on enriching learning by getting
‘outside the classroom’ more often. In their evaluation of teachers’ beliefs
and practices, Zink and Boyes (2006) found that the majority of learning
taking place outside of the classroom in primary schools occurred close or
inside school grounds, whereas just under half (45%) of secondary school
learning took place in outdoor centres and national parks. The four most
identified barriers to teaching outdoors were safety, cost, and curriculum
pressures along with demands on teachers’ time. Evidence indicated that
only some teachers were enthusiastic enough to commit to teaching out-
doors at a time when there was limited training provided on teacher edu-
cation programmes and a diminishing support network for teachers in
ATTEMPTS TO SUPPORT OUTDOOR LEARNING IN SCOTTISH SCHOOLS 425

schools (Zink and Boyes 2006). These findings match Australian evidence
of teacher enthusiasm being a key factor in increasing levels of outdoor
learning (Lugg and Martin 2001, Polley and Pickett 2003) and more
recent New Zealand reporting (Hill 2010).
In summary, the paper aims to critically discuss the main challenges
associated with implementing CfEtOL through interpreting interview data
collected from key stakeholders at each of the main levels of reform. Four
central research questions will form the focus of interviews. These are to
what extent is there:

• consensus on outdoor learning aims,

• agreement on the effectiveness of new partnership arrangements,
• examples of innovative learning and teaching programmes in schools,
and
• evidence of how outdoor learning experiences can become self-sus-
taining.

Methodology

Procedure

The research was informed by the interpretive research paradigm, and

semi-structured interviews were used as the research method and
methodology. The interpretive paradigm examines experiences and per-
ceptions of reality by asking individuals to make sense of their world
and their occupational contexts. In order to generate the kinds of data
we considered necessary for addressing our four central research ques-
tions, an analytical framework was designed (table 1) to ensure there
was a coherent link between Fullan’s (2006a) change theory premises
and the aims, partnerships, professionalism, and sustainability issues
considered as pivotal to researching stakeholders views of CfEtOL.
Steps were taken to ensure that each level of stakeholder was asked
lead questions which were appropriate to their role and which articu-
lated with each premise (table 1). The lead author conducted all inter-
views on a one-to-one basis. Interviews took place during the first half
of 2011 with the aim of engaging interviewees in open conversations
(Rapley 2004). As each interview progressed there was flexibility avail-
able for a range of follow-up questions to be asked after lead questions
(table 1). Supplementary questions aimed to build on points associated
with earlier theorizing and which articulated with interviewees emerging
responses to lead questions. As many stakeholders have held teaching
remits in their careers, questions often asked interviewees for practical
examples of outdoor learning in action in order to illustrate explana-
tions and provide further insight into personal perspectives on outdoor
learning. Interviews were recorded with the interviewees’ permission
and lasted  60 minutes. Each interviewee was provided with a guar-
antee that they would not be named in subsequent analysis and
reporting.
Table 1. The links between Fullan’s core premises, areas of analysis, and the lead questions asked at national, local authority, and
426

school level.

Fullan’s Level of
premises Areas of analysis interviewee Lead question Possible follow-up question topics
Motivation Aims National, Do the aims of CfEtOL reflect your own Personal education values; Changes in values over
Local educational values? career; Personal concept of outdoor learning/
Authority & education––experiential, environmental, multi-event,
School etc.
Capacity Aims Local Are your educational values broadly Examples from practice; Self-regulation; Internal
building Authority & shared with colleagues? accountability.
School
Capacity Aims National Was there a broad policy consensus Personal input into policy process; Areas of
building about the aims of CfEtOL? agreement/contestation on aims; Role of school and
residential centre learning.
Capacity Aims National & Under what conditions are Professional learning communities; Response from
building Local improvements in outdoor learning most teachers; Changes in pedagogical practices;
authority likely to occur? Examples of ‘theory in action’.
Levels of Partnership National, How effective are partnerships links Strength of support; Variability of support;
engagement Local between national agencies, local Relationships between partners; Factors influencing
Authority & authorities, and schools? support; Policy fragmentation; Power and
School negotiation; Funding; Monitoring of policy;
Acceptance of new partnership models.
Learning in Professionalism National Has the focus in schools, to date, been Changes in pedagogical practice; Pursuit of holistic
context too much on ‘successful learning’ goals; Potential of initiatives, e.g. ‘Outdoor
relative to other three CfE capacities? Journeys’.
Learning in Professionalism Local Where does most outdoor learning you Local authority and school settings; Transfer of
context Authority & organize/teach take place? learning; Role of residential centres.
School
Changing Professionalism National How is it best to get good ideas to flow Value of national ‘one stop’ online centre; Safety
context between schools? and risk assessment concerns; Evaluation of online
centre.
Changing Professionalism Local How effectively are CfEtOL ideas Potential of outdoor learning; Flow of ideas;
context Authority & supported in your work? Bureaucracy; Risk assessment.
School
M. THORBURN AND P. ALLISON

(Continued)
Table 1 (Continued)
Fullan’s Level of
premises Areas of analysis interviewee Lead question Possible follow-up question topics
Reflective Sustainability National, How could outdoor learning in schools Communities of practice; Differences between
action Local become sustainable in future years? primary and secondary schools; Response from
Authority & teachers; Flexible timetabling.
School
Reflective Sustainability Local How have you planned and developed Empowering teachers––examples; Uses of national
action Authority & new outdoor learning experiences? level resources.
School
Persistence Sustainability Local How important has persistence been in Highs and lows; Persistence in action––examples;
Authority & trying to increase levels of outdoor Resistance; Feedback from colleagues and pupils.
School learning?
ATTEMPTS TO SUPPORT OUTDOOR LEARNING IN SCOTTISH SCHOOLS
427
428 M. THORBURN AND P. ALLISON

Participants

In making sampling decisions we applied the data saturation principles

advocated by Francis et al. (2010) when completing theory-based inter-
view studies. The authors specify that detailing a minimum sample size
for initial analysis and a stopping criterion for when it becomes apparent
that no new ideas are emerging is necessary. We specified that three initial
interviews with teachers and local authority employees who were their
authorities’ representative on the Scottish Advisory Panel of Outdoor
Education (SAPOE) and with national level representatives from both
central government and from associated partners were needed. The inter-
viewees at national level recommended themselves as beneficial to inter-
view on a case-selected (quality vs volume) basis, as they were involved as
either a member of the Outdoor Connections programme, a member of
OLSAG, directly involved in the writing of CfEtOL advice and guidance
when working for Learning and Teaching Scotland, or key informants of
established national organizations such as the Outward Bound Trust. No
requests for an interview were declined. We also specified that one further
interview would be conducted with each of the four levels of stakeholder
if it became apparent during initial interviews that familiar issues were
reappearing. This procedure was followed and, in total, 16 interviews
were completed. One difficulty in the selection process was in identifying
teachers to interview. We relied on recommendations from others inter-
viewees, as proceeding with this method was considered better than
selecting from a general sample of teacher interviewees. However, it is
recognized, in advance, that this strategy was not a random one and
might well not be reflective of the scale of the challenges which many
schools face. Given the aforementioned implementation difficulties of
building capacity in CfE in secondary schools (Cowan and McMurty
2009, Priestley 2010), our four teacher interviewees were all based in sec-
ondary schools and included two head teachers, one deputy head teacher,
and one class teacher.

Data analysis

In completing a comprehensive analysis of interviews, transcripts were

carefully transcribed and listened to in order to familiarize ourselves with
the data and to ensure accuracy of meaning (Silverman 2006). Thereafter,
multiple readings enabled patterns and relationships relevant to the litera-
ture and the analytical framework for discussion to be recognized. This
initial or open coding ensured that we were open to the nuanced details
of the various issues which emerged (Charmaz 2006). Later, focused cod-
ing enabled us to develop relevant categories for framing discussions.
Adopting this approach meant that key issues were not accepted as static,
but problematized in order that probing and reviewing key issues was
ongoing as data collection and analysis occurred concurrently. This
approach also enabled conflicting views to be represented, as categories
were emergent rather than pre-conceived (Rubin and Rubin 1995). In
ATTEMPTS TO SUPPORT OUTDOOR LEARNING IN SCOTTISH SCHOOLS 429

later discussion national level stakeholders and national level partners are
distinguished in order to provide a finer grained analysis of interview
evidence.

Discussion

Aims (motivation/capacity building)

There was across interviewees a strong motivation and appreciation of the

holistic intentions underpinning CfE and CfEtOL. This was often
reflected in highly personalized accounts of earlier outdoor experiences
and the impressions these had made on educational values, especially in
terms of the new opportunities they afforded. One head teacher described
how they would not have become a teacher had it not been for the trans-
formative benefits of a month long outdoor centre residential experience
in their final year of schooling ‘as it built the confidence necessary to
make teaching a career choice’ (interview 20/05/11). Among many
national and local authority stakeholders their personal motivation and
interest in outdoor learning was closely linked to their current professional
responsibilities.
National level stakeholders and partners often reported on the
CfEtOL potential for contextualizing knowledge outdoors through, for
example, making connections between the environmental and the per-
sonal and social, and with new CfE literacy, numeracy, and health and
wellbeing agendas. In some cases, elaboration was on aims linked to wider
society goals. Thus, as knowledge becomes more complex, e.g. in terms
of sustaining economic growth as global citizens, greater levels of outdoor
learning can become a productive space and context for reviewing and
changing approaches to learning. The views of Patrick Geddes, who was
at the forefront of scientific thinking about town planning, ecology, and
nature conservation, and of how these could impact on sustainability and
use of space, were occasionally invoked (Stephen 2004). Overall, it was
considered that outdoor learning was a holistic process which was capable
of engaging with pupils’ deeper motivations and as something which was
more profound than mastering the basic skills of a few adventurous activi-
ties. As such, it was thought that every teacher should have the opportu-
nity and capacity to teach outdoors. In this respect, CfEtOL was, as one
national stakeholder described it, ‘quite radical and revolutionary’, with
the additional ‘beauty of it being that it is quite succinct’ (interview 20/
06/11). Yet, brief as CfEtOL is, it provided the endorsement necessary as
‘I know for a fact there are schools, primary schools especially, where the
head teacher has got this and said this is the green light for what we need
to do as part of our school development plan’ (interview 20/06/11). As
such, it was not generally considered disadvantageous that outdoor learn-
ing was not a set curriculum requirement ‘as we got as far as we could to
say that it is almost an entitlement’ (interview 06/04/11).
In building capacity, there was general agreement that making greater
use of outdoor spaces locally available would be helpful. As one national
partner noted ‘over 90% of all Scottish schools are within one kilometre
430 M. THORBURN AND P. ALLISON

of a forest space’ (interview 05/04/11). Experiencing the outdoors regu-

larly in the pre-school (3–5) and primary (5–11) years was seen as making
learning outdoors more clearly connected with later ‘more exotic’ (inter-
view 05/04/11) residential centre visits and participation on DofE schemes
which were often available in the middle and upper secondary school
years (14–18 years). Crucial to establishing such connectivity was, in the
view of one national stakeholder, ‘the curriculum, for unless outdoor
learning becomes embedded in the curriculum it will be no better than all
the other past initiatives’ (interview 06/04/11). Thus, what was expected
was that there would be articulation and progression between CfEtOL
and the main ideas which underpin CfE, where educational contexts
should recognize the ‘ethos and life of the school as a community, curric-
ulum areas and subjects, interdisciplinary learning and opportunities for
personal achievement’ (Learning and Teaching Scotland 2008: 20). These
views were not always endorsed by local authority interviewees, where
aims of outdoor learning were more polarized, with some championing
much more prominently the benefits of outdoor activities and residential
school trips. As one SAPOE member pointed out ‘there is something in
the terminology and if you mention outdoor education to most people
they would think of climbing, skiing and whatever’ (interview 18/04/11).
Such diverse views were considered by some national level stakeholders as
hindering implementation of CfEtOL.
Zink and Boyes (2006) found, when ranking teachers responses to 15
values statements on beliefs and values underpinning outdoor education
practice in New Zealand, that the highest endorsement was for the state-
ment ‘outdoor education can enrich all curriculum areas’, and the lowest
endorsement was for ‘outdoor education is mainly focused on outdoor
pursuits’. Even though the survey response rate was a modest 14% (210
from 1500 surveys returned), there is some evidence of shared aims in
New Zealand helping to build capacity. In this respect, the advocacy in
England by various charitable organizations (e.g. King’s College London
2011) of the need for greater learning in natural environments in order to
foster the development of pupils’ knowledge, skills, and personal develop-
ment may prove similarly helpful.
At school level, in Scotland, one long-serving head teacher considered
that his time in post was helpful in communicating his educational values.
He welcomed CfE ‘as a wonderful opportunity to reshape the curriculum’
(interview 27/04/11) and to emphasize how increasing levels of outdoor
learning would benefit pupils. Much of his efforts are currently on ‘laying
in the language of education to support pupils’ experiences … not to jus-
tify it, but to demonstrate in words the benefits’ (interview 27/04/11).
This has involved planning outdoor learning programmes which try to
closely reflect the schools values and mission statement, plus exploring
ways which pupils can weave their experiences into the culture of the
school. These messages can then become displayed throughout the
school, e.g. on noticeboard displays and through featuring prominently in
school newsletters, so that the wider school community and parents can
gain insights as well into school values and the range of outdoor learning
opportunities pupils experience. Such reporting can also encourage teach-
ATTEMPTS TO SUPPORT OUTDOOR LEARNING IN SCOTTISH SCHOOLS 431

ers to become more widely involved in integrated teaching. Another head

teacher emphasized similar intentions when describing their use of co-
operative and distributive leadership, which recognized that changes takes
time and as ‘implementation dips you need to challenge staff and then
support them when they suggest ideas’ (interview 20/05/11).
In summary, despite some evidence of polarized views, in general
interview evidence reflects agreement with Fullan’s premises on the
importance of professionals being motivated to build capacity and of shar-
ing a broad consensus on aims and purposes. CfEtOL was predominantly
considered to offer the best prospect for achieving sustained change for
outdoor learning in many years. Nevertheless, as many interviewees out-
lined, we are still some way from thinking through how outdoor learning
can become ‘regular, frequent, enjoyable and challenging’ (Learning and
Teaching Scotland 2010: 7). Despite minority evidence of policy ambi-
tions ‘lacking presence’ … and of still being … ‘relatively unknown about
by many teachers’ (interview 22/3/11), there was general optimism that
the endorsement of outdoor learning was as strong a policy lead as could
be expected, especially as Scotland has a long history of preferring to raise
awareness through ‘partnership, consensus and consultation’ rather than
by specifying set entitlements in education (Humes 2008: 71). This, cou-
pled with a sense that discussions on aims and purposes were becoming
less feisty than in the past, as ‘we are all for getting the kids outdoors one
way or another’ (interview 05/04/11), as one national level partner
described it, provides some encouragement that stakeholders are commit-
ted to accepting increased responsibility in their professional role for
improving levels and quality of outdoor learning.

Partnership (levels of engagement)

Most interviewees agreed that gaining devolved Scottish Government

powers for education in 2000 was beneficial in building new partner-
ships, e.g. as exemplified by the new outdoor learning website between
organizations such as the Forestry Commission and Learning and
Teaching Scotland. This has helped new partners in the policy process
to be seen as a key component of government and not as separate
organizations. The general strategy for building partnership was as one
national stakeholder described it to ‘appeal to both the intellect and the
emotions through raising awareness events such as the national confer-
ence in 2009’ (interview 06/04/11) and six follow-up regional confer-
ences in 2010. National stakeholders attending these events recognized
concerns over professional development, and this led to 51 regional-
based events being offered between October 2010 and March 2011. As
the evaluations of these events were very positive there was disappoint-
ment that no further funding for professional development training was
available. Furthermore, in April 2011, the Scottish Government created
‘Education Scotland’ through merging Learning and Teaching Scotland
(primarily a curriculum agency) with the Inspectorate organization (pri-
marily a monitoring agency). The merger led to 130 employees from
432 M. THORBURN AND P. ALLISON

Learning and Teaching Scotland (a third of the workforce) leaving their

posts. Against this backdrop, one national stakeholder commented that
the CfEtOL policy vision was one which was simply ‘a good idea but
at the wrong time’ (interview 06/04/11) in terms of the greater reorga-
nization and support for stakeholders which is taking place in Scottish
education.
Even though no further professional development events are planned,
a new National Network for Outdoor Learning strategy group has been
set up. A major aim of the group is ‘to find a champion for outdoor learn-
ing in each local authority’ (interview 18/03/11) and to encourage them
to take forward their action plans. However, it was recognized in advance
that there will probably be considerable variations in how this happens,
for, as one national government stakeholder described it, ‘the marrow of
local authorities is being sucked out and there is less time for such people
to make a difference’ (interview 18/03/11). As such, there will be situa-
tions, where, as one local authority stakeholder commented, ‘someone in
a local authority will have a clear remit for outdoor learning and have the
ear of more senior directorate level staff, and elsewhere where outdoor
learning is a minor responsibility of others and is not necessarily being
covered’ (interview 22/03/11). Links between national and local authority
stakeholders were also influenced by how outdoor education was managed
in local authorities. Considerable diversity existed, e.g. in some local
authorities staff had worked tirelessly to ‘remain part of education’ (inter-
view 13/05/11), while others thought it preferable to be outside of educa-
tion and part of Community and wellbeing services, primarily so that
outdoor education might remain apart from the sizeable cutbacks planned
for education departments.
In recognition of variable local authority support, there was wide-
spread agreement among interviewees that teachers needed to make the
most of their increased curriculum autonomy and try and cultivate links
with national partners, even though many of these partners had difficulties
of their own to cope with. Thus, even though offering support to schools
articulated with their mission statements and contributed towards social
impact evidence, the need to make profit which then subsidized various
initiatives is proving problematic for some charitable trusts to manage.
For example, one organization offered for the first time low-cost profes-
sional development opportunities for teachers. However, those attending
tended to be ‘the already converted’ (interview 03/06/11) rather than a
cross-section of teachers. Therefore, it was not expected that the initiative
would lead to many new bookings, as identifying and cultivating good
relations with a new school contact person had not been established. For
another national partner the problem was how to support a growth in
interest by schools for their awards, as increases in uptake have not been
matched by increases in staffing. This led to unease about whether the
award could be rolled out on a more national basis, even though one local
authority interviewee recognized the awards usefulness in bridging the gap
between their junior achievement award for upper primary age pupils and
the start of DofE awards. As a result, it was pointed out by one national
partner that ‘it does not help when central government stakeholders say
ATTEMPTS TO SUPPORT OUTDOOR LEARNING IN SCOTTISH SCHOOLS 433

that voluntary organizations and charitable trusts should be able to build

capacity’ (interview 20/06/11).
For some national stakeholders the main partnership issue was as
much to do with monitoring quality as building new capacity. They com-
mented that ‘some of the partners need to be realistic about what they
can deliver. A lot of them came in at the outset when it was just the four
capacities and they expect that they can deliver CfE’ (interview 20/06/11).
Viewing matters in this way was not considered sufficiently detailed rela-
tive to the range of experiences and outcomes now required, as CfE has
progressed to full implementation. In contrast, from many national part-
ners’ perspectives, concerns were more focused on how reductions in edu-
cation expenditure might impact on professional development budgets,
and thereafter on teachers’ enthusiasm for volunteering their time. Thus,
while it was seen as constructive that some schools were increasing links
with partners, in many others schools provision has continued as in years
past. This has typically involved either little learning outdoors taking
place, or only modest evidence of teachers’ increasing school-based pro-
grammes in line with CfEtOL expectations. There was also frequently
reported evidence of schools continuing to schedule annual visits to resi-
dential centres as a curriculum add-on, with little acknowledgement of
changed policy circumstance. Such inactivity indicates that many teachers
do not immediately recognize their outdoor learning responsibilities and
view outdoor learning as a curriculum addition which might well be deliv-
ered by other teachers and/or instructors. As one national partner summa-
rized it ‘change in many schools will take a generation to occur’
(interview 19/5/11).
Fullan’s main concerns regarding multi-level partnerships were that
stakeholders need to support and negotiate with each other for change to
occur. The main Scottish findings are that the mixed nature of leadership
and support at national and local authority levels has made it difficult to
build sustained capacity as yet, despite the new raised awareness and pol-
icy prominence of CfEtOL. New national partners are keen to negotiate
spaces for themselves in the changed policy circumstance, but are often
constrained by the scale and scope of their organizations. These limita-
tions have made it difficult to assist schools at times. As such, schools
were reported as making variable progress with the self-start leadership
skills, and enthusiasm of particular teachers being highlighted as the key
determinants of greater engagement with learning outdoors. These find-
ings are consistent with evidence from Victoria, Australia, and New Zea-
land on how, when faced with limited partnership support, progress will
be largely determined by the enthusiasm and ability of particular teachers
(Lugg and Martin 2001, Hill 2010).

Professionalism (learning in context /changing context)

The variable uptake on enhancing curriculum enrichment through greater

outdoor learning was reflected by national level interviewees who often
had difficulty in recommending schools to visit with the same few schools
434 M. THORBURN AND P. ALLISON

and teachers being repeatedly mentioned. At local authority level, only a

few interviewees could provide examples of relatively low cost and close
to school-rich experiential learning which was happening. For primary
schools, most reporting was on the pragmatics of how limited funding
was being used to map school grounds, meet training costs, produce
newsletters, and purchase equipment in the expectation that this could
create the potential for increased outdoor learning in due course. In sec-
ondary schools, creating the conditions for professional change was even
more acute (especially across the 11–14 age range). One local authority
stakeholder tried to indicate to teachers how pupils’ outdoor learning in
school and residential contexts could be mapped alongside selected CfE
experiences and outcomes. ‘I had expected that teachers would be biting
my arm off for this information but this has not been the case. I was quite
shocked’ (interview 17/06/11).
For a few interviewees, depth of understanding was cited as a prob-
lematic professional issue due to concerns about Scotland’s poor educa-
tion performance in comparison with many other similar countries,
especially in Mathematics and Science (Trends in International Mathe-
matics and Science Survey 2007). One local authority stakeholder com-
mented on how the methodologies adopted when learning outside of the
classroom were often lacking in underpinning content knowledge. They
illustrated their comments by referencing a beach-based science lesson
which initially came across to them ‘as more of an arts and crafts session’
… as the pupils were … ‘making rock pools and playing about with paper
mache’ (interview 13/05/11). However, the openness of the class teacher
was encouraging and together they mapped out plans which were much
more obviously on understanding seaweed and salination and which
involved listing evidence, measuring the tides, completing a transect of
the beach, and discovering that the shoreline was zoned and not random.
The conclusion the local authority stakeholder drew from this episode
was that supporting teachers by taking time to work collaboratively with
them would often be necessary in developing pedagogical expertise and in
providing teachers with the confidence to continue teaching outdoors.
Stan (2009) researched the detail of group interaction in outdoor learning
and contrasted the relative merits of different approaches to facilitation. A
detached approach was criticized for its lack of focus on outcomes and
support and empathy with learners, while a contrasting controlling
approach was also considered ineffective due to its lack of flexibility and
an over-emphasis on achieving outcomes. These differences highlight
some of the in-action dilemmas teachers’ face. Thorburn and Marshall
(2011) proposed in such circumstances that Dewey’s mapping out of a
possible middle way for recognizing the role of the teacher and the impor-
tance of curriculum goals alongside consideration of pupils’ diverse lives
and experiences when learning outdoors merits further scrutiny.
Despite general uptake and knowledge concerns, two secondary
school examples did provide evidence of teachers making greater use of
the curriculum flexibility inherent in CfE to design new outdoor learning
opportunities. In the first school, the John Muir Award was used as the
basis for blending environmental and practical activity learning. As such,
ATTEMPTS TO SUPPORT OUTDOOR LEARNING IN SCOTTISH SCHOOLS 435

pupils became alert to habitats and conservation issues as they journeyed

by kayak on local rivers, with further connections drawn with other school
experiences as best possible. Whole-day programmes ran for all pupils in
the first 2 years of secondary schooling (for pupils of 11–14 years) for 5
days each year. The teacher in charge considered that the programme was
aided by having suitable equipment available and by her own postgradu-
ate training in outdoor education which helped add to her skill-set, and
which was reflected in her confidence in integrating knowledge with prac-
tical learning. In further supporting outdoor learning and its links across
the curriculum, the head teacher organized a school professional develop-
ment day with a workshop focused on outdoor learning links to literacy,
numeracy, and health and wellbeing.
In the second example, the head teacher wanted to recognize diversity
of achievement across the four CfE capacities and not only for ‘successful
learning’. This type of challenge was identified by Hayward (2007) as being
crucial in gaining the new alignment between curriculum, pedagogies, and
assessment which is aspired towards in Scotland. The head teacher encour-
aged teachers to use learning outdoors as the context for developing narra-
tive storylines where pupils could describe their own instances of having
been challenged, having to show resilience, leadership, and such like. As
the head teacher described it, it would be ‘a horror of horror’ (interview
27/04/11) if a more systems-led approach to outdoor learning existed
‘where everyone gained the same award or had their progress ticked off
against the same checklist’ (interview 27/04/11). The entire cohort of year
1 pupils (n = 125) for one double period each week (80 minutes) took part
in a ‘fluid programme which is mostly outdoor related and culminates in
the end of year 3 day residential visit’ (interview 27/04/11). Eight teachers
from across the five curriculum faculties in the school volunteered to be in
control of planning, teaching, and evaluating the new initiative.
Wallace and Priestley (2011) found, when investigating teachers beliefs
on formative assessment benefits for learning in Scottish schools, that it
requires a mix of teachers beliefs and empowerment to create the condi-
tions for change. It might well be that both of these examples contain such
capacity and also endorse the context premises developed by Fullan
(2006a), in that learning is taking place predominantly in local environ-
ments and in areas which reflect teachers’ own areas of expertise and con-
fidence. Furthermore, in both schools the head teachers have tried to
ensure that time is available for teachers to meet and discuss new ideas
and evaluate progress, as well as trying to keep bureaucracy (especially that
associated with safety) to the minimum required. Both examples are also
consistent with the advocacy of holistic learning which is central to CfE
(Thorburn and Allison 2010). However, from a national perspective, more
coherent progress is still beset by teachers’ safety concerns and the bureau-
cracy of completing risk assessments. Thus, it was frequently reported by
many interviewees that teachers could continue to cite lack of confidence
and expertise as reasons for not teaching outdoors, irrespective of whether
these were a ‘red herring’ or not.
In summary, what characterizes learning developments so far is a
model of professionalism where many teachers’ remits have remained
436 M. THORBURN AND P. ALLISON

largely unchanged and where some teachers have engaged with new out-
door learning possibilities. What appears largely missing, so far, are exam-
ples of learner-centred curriculum models where the main stages in 3–18
schooling are clearly linked together and merged with on-going profes-
sional development opportunities and to the experiences and outcomes
scheduled in many areas of CfE, particularly those in literacy, numeracy,
and health and wellbeing, for which all teachers have a responsibility.
Thus, while CfEtOL might be considered in one respect a relative policy
success in that ‘it does at least keep open the possibilities of greater out-
door learning’ (interview 22/3/11), the downside is that its vagueness on
strategies for implementation and pedagogical advice means that many
teachers might not make use of the curriculum opportunities available for
learning outdoors. As such, CfEtOL might be considered as reflective of
CfE more generally, in that it provides a set of aspirational statements
rather than a curriculum which comes with greater methodological
assumptions and expectations about how policy guidelines are to be ful-
filled (Priestley and Humes 2010).

Sustainability (persistence/reflective action)

The varied ways in which teachers, schools, and local authorities have
responded to CfEtOL raises questions about how greater levels of outdoor
learning can become more self-sustaining in the future. The main issue
which emerged in interviews, in this respect, was the extent to which
teachers should be relatively autonomous in making curriculum and peda-
gogical decision-making, or whether greater scrutiny of aims and teaching
was required. The four teachers interviewed wanted to lead by encourage-
ment and example, and to make outdoor learning more prominent in
schools through praising and acknowledging teachers who, through com-
mitment and professional flexibility, had made gains in implementing
CfEtOL. At national level, however, this was often considered a slow and
problematic route to progress, and a difficult model for charitable organi-
zations to commit funding towards in difficult economic times. Many
considered that external accountability measures were a necessary part of
effective policy implementation. Some mentioned that it would be helpful
if outdoor learning was treated in a similar way to the Eco-Schools initia-
tive where compliance with the achievement of certain targets is acknowl-
edged by the award of different flag colours. Since Eco schools began in
2001, interest and involvement has increased, so that currently just over
95% of Scottish schools participate in the programme and are subject to
regular reviews by an amalgam of HMIE, local authorities, and ‘Keep
Scotland Beautiful’, the organization managing the programme. Many
national stakeholders also considered that the new ‘Education Scotland’
body could be utilized to good effect, as future schools inspections are
designed to be more constructive affairs in terms of linking more closely
with school actions plans for improvements.
Overall, despite the potential of the new partnership model of policy
implementation, many interviewees considered that progress towards
ATTEMPTS TO SUPPORT OUTDOOR LEARNING IN SCOTTISH SCHOOLS 437

meeting the aspirations of CfEtOL would continue to be limited, as

essentially what is trying to be progressed is a non-school subject with
non-subject teachers. Therefore, there was wide agreement about the
need for outdoor learning to become a much greater component part of
teacher education programmes as opposed to the present situation where
only a handful of sessions are typically available. This criticism reflects
the views of authors such as Goodson (1987), who, based on geography
and environmental studies evidence, argued that unless there is a clear
link between subjects in schools and university disciplines then there will
be a struggle for curriculum legitimacy. There was also recognition that
CfEtOL might reflect previous patterns of policy development for outdoor
education in Scotland, which is often one of ‘bold innovation and subse-
quent decline’ (Higgins 2002: 165). For example, as recently as the late
1970s and early 1980s in the most urban areas of Scotland there were
programmes of outdoor education in schools, as well as on-going collabo-
rations with higher education partners. One national stakeholder reflected
that at the start of their career in the mid-1970s each school in their then
regional authority (n = 35) had an outdoor education teacher as well as
there being three full time advisors in post. Only a couple of these posts
now remain, as whether teachers were replaced or not often ‘rested on
the whim of the head teacher’ (interview 20/6/11).
The current marginalized curriculum presence could be set to con-
tinue with the latest review of teacher education in Scotland failing to
mention the contribution outdoor learning could make to teaching meth-
odologies and as a context for learning (Scottish Government 2011).
Therefore, the limited connection between schools and higher education
is problematic, for while Fullan (2006a: 11) notes the importance of indi-
vidual stakeholders’ enthusiasm, perseverance, and flexibility, he also
notes that ‘if you don’t understand the thinking you are more likely to use
even the best strategies superficially or in a piecemeal fashion’. In this
respect, the rationale discussions underway in England (King’s College
London 2010) and in Australia, where Martin (2010) has conceptualized,
in detail, how outdoor education should be part of the national curricu-
lum as it can promote relationships, critical thinking, and ecological liter-
acy, might be considered to address necessary underpinning thinking
issues more evidently than CfEtOL does. Therefore, it remains a moot
point whether the simplicity of CfEtOL will be a helpful form of raising
awareness in the longer term or whether its avoidance on elaborating how
to build capacity and develop professional learning communities will
come to be seen as more of a missed policy opportunity.

Conclusion

This paper has analysed four central research questions (on, in order,
aims, partnership, professionalism, and sustainability) and related these to
policy and practice attempts to support increased levels of outdoor
learning in schools, in ways which articulate with Scotland’s wider curric-
ulum ambitions to provide a more holistic and integrated model of educa-
438 M. THORBURN AND P. ALLISON

tion. To support this endeavour, we utilized Fullan’s (2006a) theorizing

on educational reform, as it provides an ordered account of how change
can take place and the reasons why change can be variously productive
and/or problematic. At an introductory level, we have benefitted from
Fullan’s theorizing in identifying the broad strengths and weaknesses of
the partnership model of development underway for CfEtOL. We found
evidence of high levels of a greater consensus on aims and motivation for
greater levels of outdoor learning in schools (first research question). We
have also found evidence of reforms at school level (albeit at schools we
were recommended to visit), where new learning opportunities were being
created and developed in familiar local outdoor contexts (third research
question). In these schools, teachers were asking questions of themselves
(internal accountability) in terms of what they could do to build capacity.
However, we also noted that clear and comprehensive implementation
strategies between stakeholders rarely existed, most commonly as a conse-
quence of the varied support available in local authorities and among
national partners. As a result, there was only occasional evidence reported
of CfEtOL policy aspirations being widely met in schools (second
research question). This raises concerns about the extent to which new
outdoor learning opportunities might be more a matter of chance, as it
appears predominantly to be in England (King’s College London 2010),
than as a consequence of a balanced and connected understanding of
partners’ roles and policy responsibilities (fourth research question). In
such light, quite how the implementation of policy can articulate with the
greater societal goals of Scotland is of concern, e.g. with regard to increas-
ing pupils’ equality of educational opportunities. As Lingard (2008) high-
lights, the main achievement of the public policy model of government in
Scandinavian countries is that they have managed to limit the adverse
influences of social class in ways which more Anglo-Celtic countries such
as Scotland have yet to manage. Thus, ‘the question still remains of how
inequality generally and specifically in schooling can be overcome in con-
temporary Scotland’ (Lingard 2008: 979).
In this respect, there is a need to progress beyond our initial
research, for as Noguera’s (2006: 129) notes in his critical response to
Fullan’s ideas on change in education, Fullan’s analysis is rather
detached in context and ‘overlooks the central problems confronting
schools in impoverished areas’. We concur with this view and, therefore,
consider that utilizing complexity theory would be an appropriate frame-
work to further analyse the continuation of change process, for, as Mor-
rison (2008: 22) notes, schools are ‘dynamical and unpredictable, non-
linear organizations’ operating in ever-changing environments. Thus,
attempting to understand in greater detail the mix of factors which has
influenced CfEtOL developments would recognize the complexities
inherent in educational structures and practices in a small nation where
trusting teachers to bring about change is the preferred policy model
(Humes 2008). Improving understanding in these areas would add to
theorizing about how achieving change and supporting learning better
could occur when working with new partnership approaches to curricu-
lum planning.
ATTEMPTS TO SUPPORT OUTDOOR LEARNING IN SCOTTISH SCHOOLS 439

References

Charmaz, K. (2006) Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analy-
sis (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).
Cowan, E. M. and McMurty, D. C. (2009) The implementation of ‘Education for
Citizenship’ in schools in Scotland: a research report. Curriculum Journal, 20(1), 61–72.
Datnow, A. (2006) Comments on Michael Fullan’s ‘The future of educational change:
system thinkers in action’. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 133–135.
Francis, J., Johnston, M., Robertson, C., Glidewell, L., Entwistle, V., Eccles, M. and
Grimshaw, J. M. (2010) What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data sat-
uration for theory-based interview studies. Psychology & Health, 25(10), 1229–1245.
Fullan, M. (1993) Change Forces: Probing the depth of educational reform (London: Routl-
edgeFalmer).
Fullan, M. (1999) Change Forces: The sequel (London: Taylor & Francis).
Fullan, M. (2003) Change Forces with a Vengeance (London: RoutledgeFalmer).
Fullan, M. (2006a) Change theory: A force for school improvement (Victoria, Australia: Cen-
tre for Strategic Education, Paper No. 157).
Fullan, M. (2006b) The future of educational change: system thinkers in action. Journal of
Educational Change, 7, 113–122.
Fullan, M. (2009) Large-scale reforms come of age. Journal of Educational Change, 10,
101–113.
Gillies, D. (2006) A curriculum for excellence. A question of values. Scottish Educational
Review, 38(1), 25–36.
Gillies, D. (2007) Excellence and education: rhetoric and reality. Education, Knowledge
and Economy, 1(1), 19–35.
Goodson, L. F. (1987) School Subjects and Curriculum (Lewes: Falmer).
Hayward, L. (2007) Curriculum, pedagogies and assessment in Scotland: the quest for
social justice ‘Ah kent yir faither’. Assessment in Education, 14(2), 251–268.
Higgins, P. (2002) Outdoor education in Scotland. Journal of Adventure Education & Out-
door Learning, 2(2), 149–168.
Hill, A. (2010) Reflections on beliefs and practices from New Zealand outdoor educators:
Consistencies and conflicts. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 14(1),
30–40.
Humes, W. (2008) Policy making in Scottish education. In T.G.K. Bryce and W.H.
Humes (eds), Scottish education (Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press),
69–79.
King’s College London (2010) Beyond barriers to learning outside the classroom in natu-
ral environments. Available online at: http://www.lotc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/
2011/04/Beyond-barriers-to-learning-outside-the-classroom-3.pdf, accessed 19 Janu-
ary 2012.
King’s College London (2011) Understanding the diverse benefits of learning in natural
environments. Available online at: http://www.lotc.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2011/
09/KCL-LINE-benefits-final-version.pdf, accessed 19 January 2012.
Learning and Teaching Scotland (2005) Outdoor Learning. Available online at: http://
www.ltscotland.org.uk/outdoorlearning/keyinformation/outdoorconnections/issue1.
asp, accessed 15 March 2011.
Learning and Teaching Scotland (2007) Taking Learning Outdoors: Partnership for Excel-
lence (Dundee: Learning and Teaching Scotland).
Learning and Teaching Scotland (2008) Curriculum for Excellence: Building the Curriculum
3: A Framework for Learning and Teaching. Available online at: http://www.
ltscotland.org.uk/Images/building_the_curriculum_3_jms3_tcm4-489454.pdf, accessed
18 March 2011.
Learning and Teaching Scotland (2009a) Curriculum for Excellence: Building the Curriculum
4: skills for learning, skills for life and skills for work. Available online at: http://www.
ltscotland.org.uk/Images/BtC4_Skills_tcm4-569141.pdf,accessed 18 March 2011.
Learning and Teaching Scotland (2009b) How is the Curriculum Structured? Available
online at: http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/curriculumforexcellence/curriculumoverview/
totality/curriculumareas/index.asp, accessed 12 March 2011.
440 M. THORBURN AND P. ALLISON

Learning and Teaching Scotland (2010) Curriculum for Excellence through Outdoor Learning.
Available online at: http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/Images/cfeoutdoorlearningfinal_
tcm4- 596061.pdf, accessed 12 January 2011.
Lingard, B. (2008) Scottish education: Reflections from an international perspective. In
T.G.K. Bryce and W.H. Humes (eds), Scottish education (Edinburgh: University of
Edinburgh Press), 968–981.
Lugg, A. and Martin, P. (2001) The nature and scope of outdoor education in Victorian
schools. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 5(2), 42–48.
Macdonald, D. (2003) Curriculum change and the post-modern world: is the school cur-
riculum-reform movement an anachronism? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(2),
139–149.
Martin, P. (2010) Outdoor education and the national curriculum in Australia. Australian
Journal of Outdoor Education, 14(2), 3–11.
McKernan, J. (2008) Curriculum and imagination: process theory, pedagogy and action research
(London: Routledge).
Morrison, K. (2008) Educational philosophy and the challenge of complexity theory.
Education Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 19–34.
Noguera, P. A. (2006) A critical response to Michael Fullan’s, ‘The future of educational
change: system thinkers in action’. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 129–132.
Polly, S. and Pickett, B. (2003) The nature and scope of outdoor education in South
Australia. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 7(2), 11–18.
Priestley, M. (2010) Curriculum for excellence. transformational change or business as
usual?. Scottish Educational Review, 42(1), 22–35.
Priestley, M. and Humes, W. (2010) The development of Scotland’s curriculum for excel-
lence. Amnesia and déjà vu. Oxford Review of Education, 36(3), 345–361.
Rapley, T. (2004) Interviews. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J.F. Gubrium and D. Silverman
(eds), Qualitative Research Practice (London: Sage), 15–33.
Rubin, H. J. and Rubin, I. S. (1995) Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data
(Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).
Scottish Executive (2004) A curriculum for excellence. The Curriculum Review Group (Edin-
burgh: Scottish Executive).
Scottish Government (2011) Teaching Scotland’s Future: Report of a review of teacher educa-
tion in Scotland (Edinburgh: Scottish Government).
Seikkula-Leino, J. (2011) The implementation of entrepreneurship education through cur-
riculum reform in Finnish comprehensive schools. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43
(1), 69–85.
Silverman, D. (2006) Interpreting Qualitative Data (London: Sage).
Stan, I. (2009) Recontextualizing the role of the facilitator in group interaction in the out-
door classroom. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 9(1), 23–43.
Stephen, W. (2004) (ed.) Think Global, Act Local: The Life and Legacy of Patrick Geddes
(Edinburgh: Luath Press).
Thorburn, M. and Allison, P. ( (2010) Are we ready to go outdoors now? The prospects
for outdoor education during a period of curriculum renewal in Scotland. Curriculum
Journal, 21(1), 97–108.
Thorburn, M. and Marshall, A. (2011) Evaluating adventure education experiences: The
outside view. In M. Berry and C. Hodgson (eds), Adventure Education: An Introduc-
tion (London: Routledge), 105–125.
Thorburn, M., Jess, M. and Atencio, M. (2009) Connecting policy aspirations with princi-
pled progress? An analysis of current physical education challenges in Scotland. Irish
Educational Studies, 28(2), 209–223.
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Survey (2007) Available online at:
http://nces.ed.gov/timss/results07.asp, accessed 22 May 2011.
Wallace, C. S. and Priestley, M. (2011) Teacher beliefs and the mediation of curriculum
innovation in Scotland: A socio-cultural perspective on professional development
and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(3), 357–381.
Zink, R. and Boyes, M. (2006) The nature and scope of outdoor education in New
Zealand schools. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 10(1), 11–21.
Copyright of Journal of Curriculum Studies is the property of Routledge 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.