(Unit 4): Evaluate 2 pieces of research on Forest School practice

PAPER 1

Play, behaviour, language and social skills: The comparison of a play and a non-play intervention within a specialist school setting

Chloe O’Connor, Karen Stagnitti

School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, 1 Gheringhap Street, Geelong, Australia

In this research paper the researcher had the intent of investigating whether a play intervention within a specialist school increased the play, behaviour, language and social skills of children aged 5-8 years compared to a non-play intervention over a six month period. There were four hypotheses tested in this study. 

1. Children participating in the play intervention would demonstrate an increase in play, behaviour, language and social skills over the six month period when comparing baseline and follow up data.

1. Children participating in the comparison group would not demonstrate an increase in their play, behaviour, language and social skills over a six month period when comparing baseline and follow up data.

1. There would be no significant difference between the children participating in the play intervention compared to the comparison group at baseline.

1. There would be a significant difference between the play intervention group and the comparison group at follow up with the play intervention group having an increased level of play, behaviour, language and social skills.

The paper explained pretend play refers to the use of absent objects, imaginative play, symbolism and property attributes of objects.  It has been proven through research (Westby, 2000) that pretend play has been positively associated with the development of social competence and social skills. They found that children with less social skills were associated with children unable to partake in pretend play and understand the concept of pretend play. The overall results of this hypothesis had shown that children with autism were less capable of pretend play than typically developing children. Children with cognitive and language development difficulties have also displayed a decreased ability to engage in pretend play and a preference for structured play materials. (Ferland,2005)

The research paper goes on through each hypothesis and after the research and having opinions of speech therapist’s and child therapists the conclusion was that child initiated pretend play had positive effects on children from the aspects of social skills, language development or delay.

From my own perspective and from my own research on child led play and the benefits it can show, I agree with the research that pretend play and child led play can hugely benefit a child's cognitive development and given the right tools the child can enhance their own personal development, however, I dislike the fact they only carried out the research for six months, and I do not believe this is long enough to make a definitive conclusion to the research, as we know with Forest School, it is a long term assessment and should be for at least a year to see the real beneficial effects to children.

References:

Westby, C. (2000). A scale for assessing development of children’s play. In K. Gitlin-Weiner, A. Sandgrund, & C. Schaefer (Eds.), Play diagnosis and assessment (pp. 15–57). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Ferland, F. (2005). The ludic model: Play children with physical disabilities and occupational therapy. Ottawa, Canada: CAOT Publications ACE.

---

Paper 2:

Challenges and pedagogical conflicts for teacher-Forest School leaders implementing Forest School within the UK primary curriculum.

Victoria A. Whincup  Linda J. Allin, & Joanna M. H. Greer

Department of Psychology, Northumbria University and Department of Sport, Exercise, and Rehabilitation, Northumbria University

This research paper caught my interest as it examines the challenges and conflicts that could arise when teacher / Forest school leaders integrate Forest School principles and practices within the UK primary curriculum. I also found there were not many research papers regarding Forest School practices carried out in the UK, and I wanted to try and relate it to the country that I am in. The study delves into the experiences of educators who attempt to balance the ethos of Forest Schools with the demand and contracts of the formal education system. 

“In the UK, the importance of children engaging with the outdoors is emphasised within the government’s 25 -year Environmental plan (DEFRA 2018), and by the launching of programmes such as Nature Friendly Schools and Pupil Referral Units, which has a specific focus on providing children from disadvantaged areas access to green space.”

As the paper explains, the government made a 25 year Environmental Plan, however, implementing Forest School sessions within the curriculum requires significant resources, including time, trained staff and suitable outdoor spaces, which are not readily available within schools. For example, even within our own school, we are very lucky to be a small primary school in a rural space, however, the land we use for our Forest School sessions are owned by the Ernest Cook Trust, we are having to navigate and plan our sessions around their timetables and also health and safety, for example, we had to cancel a few sessions due to it being too windy and they deemed it unsafe to be within the trees, although we do have some open space within our school, we do not have the funding to do anything with this space.

As the paper delves into the conflict between Forest School ethos, which is fundamentally child led, experiential learning in the natural environment, often clashes with the structures, driven nature of the UK primary curriculum, this is emphasised even more as schools are required to carry out standardised testing and specific learning outcomes, which can create tension with the Forest School approach which values holistic development and informal assessment methods. 

As well as testing teachers could come up against scheduling conflicts, trying to integrate Forest School within the school timetable can be difficult due to rigid structure of the primary curriculum and the need to cover a wide range of subjects within limited time. We do find this within our primary school as we are part of an academy of a church, therefore have to take into account the curriculum but also have to make sure we have a certain amount of school time taking part in collective worship assemblies and lessons. 

It is noted in the paper that there have also been changes along the way with the Forest School model and have been diluted and comes in many forms, with some being taught with a Forest School qualified leaders, some qualified but not registered with the FSA, others schools may promote themselves as Forest School leaders but not being delivered by qualified Forest School practitioners. This has been problematic and FSA have acknowledged the lack of clarity. It has come under question whether ‘bespoke’ Forest School provisions should be discouraged as they may undermine the Forest School, or whether a less strict Forest School delivery should be seen as a positive as it means greater numbers of children benefit from outdoor learning (Knight 2018)

Another point the paper pinpoints is that teachers/school leaders may be wary of allocating regular time for Forest school sessions, as it could be detrimental to the attainment and progress of pupils in other areas and thus overall the school performance (Kemp and Pagden 2019). As schools are heavily judged on the outcome through testing and proof of work, it has been said that the incongruence between the Forest School ethos and that of traditional schooling is too different and cannot be delivered in an integrated curriculum. 

However, of all the difficulties and conflict as cited above, the delivery of Forest school is increasing in the UK primary schools, however, rather than finding an external qualified staff member, they are using existing staff as leaders to deliver or support delivery, adding pressure to the school and curriculum within. 

SOmething the paper looks at as well which I hadn’t thought of is the perception of the parent and community view of Forest School sessions, if they have not been informed correctly or if the sessions have not been carried out by a Forest School leader but they are using the ethos, there may be some misunderstanding and parents could be disgruntled to think their child is missing out on vital school work to spend time out in the woods, without understanding the cognitive and behavioural positive effects this has. 

The authors suggest that policy makers and educational leaders should consider more flexible and integrative approaches that allow for the incorporation of Forest School principles within the primary curriculum, this may involve enhanced training for teachers and greater institutional support can help mitigate the challenges faced by teacher-Forest School leaders.

In conclusion, this paper highlights the complex interplay between innovative practices of Forest Schools and the traditional structures of the UK primary curriculum. It underpins the need for systemic changes and greater changes and greater support to enable teacher - Forest School leaders to effectively implement these programs, ultimately benefiting children’s holistic development and fostering a deeper connection with nature. 

For me, this research paper defines everything that is happening within our school at the moment, I am currently a Teaching Assistant and along with a Reception/Year 1 teacher we are completing this Level 3 Forest School Leader course, we are then expected to run the Forest School Sessions for other classes as well as our own, but have to be careful how long we run these sessions, when they take place and if we are able to incorporate other curriculum based lessons within the sessions for example science, however, this goes against the Forest school ethos of child led and free play, therefore we try and combine both to make sure the children are able to choose what they would like to do and know they are not been assessed on whatever they do and it is a completely untested subject. 

In an ideal world, the government would be able to change the standardised testing requirements within primary schools and open themselves up to possibly testing the holistic needs of a child, where are the tests to see if a child is happy, or that they can understand the importance of nature and what they can achieve by being outside?  I hope there are more research papers like this one and hope that one day it’ll make a difference. 

References:

Knight, S. (2018). Translating Forest School: A response to Leather. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education

Kemp, N. and A. Pagden, A. (2019). The place of forest school within English primary schools: 545 senior leader perspectives. Education 3-13 47