The central concept of the paper encompasses the learning characteristics achieved and developed through Forest Schools (FS) and the wider implications FS has for pupils and practice. The paper covers the pilot study and results and answers several research questions including: How do the experiences of Forest School support and develop characteristics of learning?

A recent movement in culture originating within the Scandinavian education system created a realignment in pedagogy across Europe that refocused learning on the outdoors and increasingly on Forest Schools (Sääkslahti, 2022). Outdoor education and Forest Schools were received positively by teachers, leading to a paradigm shift emerging within Britain in the 1990s and continues today (Mann et al., 2021). The same shift in practice and pedagogy has been seen in the development of new style playgrounds in Germany that encourage risk taking opportunities as well as the increase in Forest School and other outdoor learning within the UK. The initial influx of Forest School and its adaptation into schools has also begun to be seen within other countries such as America and Canada. Those within formal education have increasingly looked towards alternative provision to support pupils in classrooms but until recently Forest School and other outdoor learning provisions have lacked the research support for it to become an evidence-based practice within schools.  This research fits into this year’s conference theme in several ways, it highlights the need for pedagogical change as well as learning context and culture. Forest School itself is also a force for inclusion as it should be available for all.

 The pilot study results were derived from the pupils lived experiences and narratives, providing an insight into the lived experiences and possible skills gained through children’s attendance within forest school, meeting a documented need in education currently to provide recommendations for practice. Having multiple roles as researcher, FS leader and educator led to careful consideration of approach therefore, Interpretive phenomenology (IP) formed the epistemological, ontological, and theoretical underpinning of the study to reflect on and embrace the challenges and consideration of insider research. IP is socially constructed, and information is interpreted through roles such as practitioner and pupil, as well as symbols and values (Argarwal and Sandiford, 2022). Using this approach ensured three core benefits: it embraced the idea of insider researcher reducing conflict between researcher and practitioner roles, it supported symbolic and complex meaning to be understood from the words used by the participants within the Forest School context, and thirdly it provided a framework to conduct the research within the ethical guidelines and welfare principles of the Forest School setting. Forest School is grounded within practices and principles that put children’s wishes at the centre of Forest School practitioner’s planning and actions, these principles concur with IP’s theoretical underpinnings.

The paper contains the initial pilot study results and findings derived from this. This includes changes to the study and initial themes drawn from the participant’s discourse. The pilot study allowed reflexivity and introspection which lead to an understanding of the changes required to make the research more impactful and insightful which is reflected within the paper. The pilot study also provided several insights and aligned with theory that outdoor education and Forest School are beneficial and increased understanding in this area which will be covered within the conference session.

The paper and related study are part of a professional doctorate and as such must meet the strict criteria of ethics set out by the University. The paper introduces FS as well as provoking conversation and discussion about the future of learning and implications for future practice.

Interpretive Phenomenology (IP) is the selected methodology for this research.Interpretive phenomenology formed the epistemological, ontological, and theoretical underpinning of the study. IP is socially constructed, and information is interpreted through roles such as practitioner and pupil, as well as symbols and values (Argarwal and Sandiford, 2022). Using this approach ensured three core benefits: it embraced the idea of insider researcher reducing conflict between researcher and practitioner roles, it supported symbolic and complex meaning to be understood from the words used by the participants within the Forest School context, and thirdly it provided a framework to conduct the research within the ethical guidelines and welfare principles of the Forest School setting. Ricœr (2001) argues that ethical aspects of IP originate from morality and prudence, that duties and obligations found within society, and arguably within educational contexts, guide the researcher in morality of their actions which is further strengthened through processes of reflexivity (Golstein, 2017). This is an important underpinning of this research due to the deep involvement of the researcher in formal learning environments and FS aspects. IP has been used successfully by researchers looking in-depth at participants’ narratives, such as Magg-Rapport, (1990), Frechette et al. (2020), Melis et al. (2021) and Burns et al. (2022). The extent of successful IP research is significant and reflects the magnitude of this methodology. IP appears in contemporary research demonstrating its current validity (Boadu, 2021). IP is a recent qualitative methodology that arguably moves away from more scientific procedures (Cohen et al., 2018) and has been widely used in contexts such as nursing, medicine, and online shopping research. It is considered an effective and appropriate methodology for educational contexts (Noon, 2018) as well as outdoor learning (Porto and Kroeger, 2020). The chosen method for this study is semi-structured interviews which is a tool for analysing talk alongside linking narratives to everyday life (Wooffitt, 2005; Nutbrown and Clough, 2014) and is considered an appropriate to the specific methodological approach of Interpretive Phenomenology (Bleiker et al., 2019). Using semi structured interviews allowed data collection to be naturalistic whilst producing in-depth data. Convenience sampling was used to select two participants which ensured adequate data as well as allowing for data to be anonymised. The semi structured interviews were transcribed and analysed using line by line coding and Interpretive Phenomenological analysis.

There are many considerations with the research. Practical design considerations have been reflected upon and amended to the needs of the participants and to ensure that rich data is achieved within the main study. The initial results indicate that the main study will add to the literature supporting Forest School and outdoor learning and will help provide the evidence base that this provision requires. Strengthening the results from the pilot study and this research has engendered potential derivative research ideas. The use of IP and IPA was validated through the richness of data achieved within the more open dialogue giving significance to the participants’ thoughts and feelings concerning Forest School and learning dispositions. The results of the pilot study highlighted three key areas within the participants narratives: learning, wellbeing and risk. Within the area of learning the key terms such as curiosity, problem solving and creativity, appear in overt language and through analysis. This provides evidence to support positive outcomes for participants of Forest School and supports the idea that children are aware of their own learning and the benefits that they are gaining from attending Forest School. The pilot study produced data that was useful and enabled to research questions to be answered and generally provided further information within this field. The main study will take these findings further and provide further evidence and the possibility of further themes within the participants narratives. The pilot study allowed reflexivity and introspection which lead to understanding the changes required to make the research more impactful and insightful. The pilot provided several insights and aligned with theory that outdoor education and Forest School are beneficial and increased understanding in this area.

Barfod, K. & Bentson, P., 2018. Don't ask how outdoor education can be integrated into the school curriculum; ask how the school curriculum can be taught outside the classroom. Curriculum Perspectives, 38(2), pp. 151-156. Bower, V., 2021. Debates in Primary Education. Abingdon: Routledge. Coates, J. & Pimlott-Wilson, H., 2019. Learning whilst playing: Children's Forest School experiences in the UK. British Educational Rearch Journal, 45(1), pp. 21-40. Cudworth, D., 2021. Promoting and emotional connection to nature and other animals via Forest School: disrupting the spaces of neoliberal performativity. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 41(3/4), pp. 506-521. Furedi, F., 1998. Culture of fear. Risk-taking and the morality of low expectation. London: Cassell. Harris, F., 2017. The nature of learning at Forest School: Practitioners perspectives. Education 3-13, 45(2), pp. 272-291. Kemp, N., 2020. Views from the staffroom: Forest School in English primary schools. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor learning, 20(4), pp. 369-380. Mann, J. et al., 2021. A Systematic Review Protocol to Identify the Key Benefits and efficacy of nature-based learning in outdoor educational settings. International Journal of Environmental Reasearch and Public Health., 18(3), pp. 1119-1129. McCree, M., 2022. The scenic route to academic attainment via emotional wellbeing outdoors. In: Contemporary appraoches to outdoor learning. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 117-130. Skea, A. & Fulford, A., 2021. Releasing education into the wild: an education in, and of, the outdoors. Ethics and Education, 16(1), pp. 74-90. Smith, J., Flowers, P. & Larkin, M., 2022. Interpretive Phonomenological analysis. 2nd ed. London: SAGE. Tiplady, L. & Menter, H., 2020. Forest School for wellbeing: an environment in which young people can 'take what they need'. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning., 21(2), pp. 99-114. Waite, S. & Goodenough, A., 2018. What is different about Forest School? Creating a space for alternative pedagogy in England. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, Volume 21, pp. 25-44. Whincup, V., Allin, L. & Greer, J., 2021. Challenges and pedagogical conflicts for teacher- Forest School leaders implementing Forest School within the primary curriculum. International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education., pp. 1-12. Whitty, G. & Wisby, E., 2007. Whose voice? An exploration of the current policy interest in pupil involvement in school decision-making. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 17(3), pp. 303-319.