British Educational Research Journal

Vol. 45, No. 1, February 2019, pp. 21–40

DOI: 10.1002/berj.3491

Learning while playing: Children’s Forest

School experiences in the UK
Janine K. Coates* and Helena Pimlott-Wilson
Loughborough University, UK

Children’s outdoor play is declining, despite clear links between play, learning and development.
Alternative learning initiatives which provide children with a diversity of play opportunities, includ-
ing the chance to play outdoors, are therefore needed. One such programme, Forest School, is
increasing in popularity in the UK and internationally, yet little is understood about its impact on
children’s learning, or how alternative approaches are informing learning in mainstream settings.
This novel study examined primary school children’s experiences of engaging in a Forest School
programme in relation to this intersection between formal and informal approaches to learning. It
explored how children interpret their experiences when faced with a fusion of learning environments
and critically evaluates the benefits children realise, when asked to reflect on their learning engage-
ment in both classroom and outdoor settings. Interviews were conducted with 33 children from two
mainstream primary schools in England who had recently completed a 6-week Forest School pro-
gramme. A rigorous phenomenological thematic analysis revealed three inter-related themes: a
break from routine; learning through play; collaboration and teamwork. The findings suggest that
the blending of Forest School with mainstream settings contributes to children’s social, cognitive,
emotional and physical skill development through experiential learning using play. These findings
are significant because they not only emphasise the values of social constructivist play-pedagogy
which underpin Forest School practice, but also highlight the need for primary schools to consider
learning outside of the classroom as an effective pedagogy.

Keywords: outdoor learning; play-pedagogy; alternative education; peer interaction

Introduction
Children’s access to outdoor play opportunities has declined in recent years
(Clements, 2004; Gray, 2011; Stone & Faulkner, 2014). Play, however, has been
reported as protective against poor mental and physical wellbeing in childhood
(Whitebread, 2017). Similarly, the relationship between risky outdoor play and chil-
dren’s health has indicated that play which includes an element of danger benefits
children’s emotional resilience, social functioning and physical health and wellbeing
(Brussoni et al., 2015). Further, outdoor play buffers against poor social, emotional
and physical outcomes (Isenberg & Quisenberry, 1988; Little & Wyver, 2008; Stone
& Faulkner, 2014), and performs a beneficial role in children’s learning (Maynard &
Waters, 2007; Dowdell et al., 2011; Quibell et al., 2017).

*Corresponding author. School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University,
Loughborough, Leicestershire LE11 3TU, UK. E-mail: [email protected]; Twitter: @DrJani-
neCoates

© 2018 British Educational Research Association

22 J. K. Coates and H. Pimlott-Wilson

The decline in outdoor play as part of the school day is partially due to recent
changes in educational policy, which have increased focus on attainment and pressure
to achieve national standards (Powell, 2009). Children now spend more time in class-
rooms engaged in structured learning activities; although evidence suggests that chil-
dren learn more effectively when engaged in experiential learning, such as through
play (van Oers, 2003). Other reasons for the decline in outdoor play include:
increased use of digital technology (Clements, 2004); parental concern over chil-
dren’s safety (Valentine & McKendrick, 1997; Veitch et al., 2006); and fewer entic-
ing spaces for children to play (Veitch et al., 2007). This deterioration in play
engagement may contribute to decreased school engagement and poor motivation to
learn (Ryan & Deci, 2016). Therefore, this article focuses attention on an outdoor
learning initiative which emphasises learning through play: Forest School (FS).

Play and learning

Play is an important element of all children’s learning. Considerable work explores
the function of play, much of which builds on constructivist learning theories (Piaget,
1962; Vygotsky, 1978; Dewey, 1997; Nilsson, 2009). Play is a tool which allows chil-
dren to ‘assimilate’ or integrate stimuli and information from the external world into
their existing schemas (Piaget, 1962). Further, learning through play incorporates a
significant social and environmental element, where children interact with others and
their setting to modify existing and adopt new ways of thinking (Vygotsky, 1978; van
Oers, 2003; Rogoff, 2008). While play, as a cognitive-behavioural construct, is diffi-
cult to define, it represents a multidimensional behaviour, often falling on a contin-
uum between distinct play (free-play) and non-play (work/adult-directed) behaviours
(Pellegrini, 2009). However, it is marked by active engagement with the environment
and other social actors, and can thus be considered a principle tool for experiential
learning in childhood (Waite, 2010).
For children to learn, they must experience something meaningful and relevant
(Piaget, 1962; Bruner, 1983; Dewey, 1997). Thus, constructivist, and particularly
social constructivist, theories have been instrumental in the development of play-
pedagogy, especially within early years (EY) curricula (Martlew et al., 2011; Wood,
2014a). Play-pedagogy refers to the systematic practice of facilitating children’s learn-
ing through play, with a focus on imaginative and creative endeavour. It encompasses
freedom, flexibility and structure with a mix of adult- and child-initiated activity
(Wood, 2014a). This form of situated, experiential learning has been integrated into
EY education within the UK, where curricula include child-initiated play-based
learning, alongside structured, adult-initiated activity. It is also inherent within out-
door learning programmes within schools, where Waite (2010) indicates that memo-
ries associated with outdoor teaching and learning for both practitioners and children
are associated with social benefits, challenge and risk, creativity and sensory engage-
ment. As children progress through the school system, an attainment-focused cur-
riculum reduces opportunities to play and learn outdoors (Brooker & Edwards, 2010;
Waite, 2010). Nevertheless, the importance of, and natural desire to engage in, these
experiences remains consistent as children grow (Wood, 2014b).

© 2018 British Educational Research Association

 Children’s experiences of Forest School 23

Educators, academics and policy-makers are becoming increasingly aware of the

restrictive nature of school curricula and the impact this might have on children’s
learning (Brundrett, 2012; Connolly & Haughton, 2017). The 2006 Learning outside
the classroom manifesto (DfES, 2006) went some way towards encouraging educators
to think more flexibly about how they create memorable learning experiences through
the spaces used for learning and the activities provided. Thus, schools are increasingly
drawing upon alternative and informal approaches to encourage meaningful learning,
resulting in a blurring between differing pedagogies in mainstream settings (Waite,
2011). Further, when learning is taken beyond the classroom, the structures which
define work and play also become distorted, and children may not recognise their
activity to be of educational value (Waite, 2007; Waite & Davis, 2007). Yet, a recent
study by Quibell et al. (2017), which explored the impact of an informal outdoor
learning approach—Wilderness Schooling—on attainment in core curriculum areas,
demonstrated the positive impact of learning outside of the classroom on children’s
attainment in numeracy and literacy. Thus, tensions exist in the ways teachers and
their pupils conceptualise learning in different educational spaces which traverse the
formal/informal divide, particularly when alternative approaches are drawn into the
mainstream. Neoliberal values communicated through traditional curricula can be
reinforced by engagement with informal education, which paradoxically seeks to
counter the institutionalisation of mainstream education. Given the strength of evi-
dence for play as a conduit to learning, this article explores children’s experiences of
learning during FS, an informal outdoor learning approach developed using the prin-
ciples of play-pedagogy.

Forest School
FS is an approach to learning which is considered ‘informal’ or ‘alternative’ but is
blended with traditional curricula to create opportunities for children to experience
learning outside of the classroom. In the 2006 Learning outside the classroom manifesto,
it was branded as the gold standard in outdoor learning and has been recognised for
easing ‘parental hypervigilance and a narrowing of the focus of education’ (Connolly
& Haughton, 2017: 112). FS uses natural environments to engage children in a range
of play-focused learning activities (e.g. den building, fire lighting, tool use, etc.)
intended to develop their problem-solving skills and co-operation abilities; confi-
dence, self-motivation and self-esteem (Knight, 2009; O’Brien, 2009). In the UK, FS
is recognised as a distinct programme facilitated by trained and accredited practition-
ers (Forest School Association, 2018), although such programmes are being devel-
oped internationally. The values which underpin FS are inclusive, child-focused,
offering the opportunity to engage in supported risky play and providing a range of
play-based activities which foster development beyond academic skills in an outdoor,
woodland setting (O’Brien & Murray, 2007; Forest School Association, 2018).
As a result of the play pedagogy adopted during FS, children have opportunity to
freely dip in and out of activities, engage in natural free play and practice their curios-
ity for the natural environment (Ridgers et al., 2012). Importantly, whilst opportuni-
ties to engage in outdoor play and learning typically decrease beyond the Foundation
Stages in EY provision (Waite, 2010), FS is increasing in popularity in mainstream

© 2018 British Educational Research Association

24 J. K. Coates and H. Pimlott-Wilson

schools in the UK and gradually being adopted in EY and primary school settings
(Knight, 2016). Further, FS often sits alongside mainstream school provision, deliv-
ered during the school day and running alongside the school curriculum over a num-
ber of weeks, or sometimes over the course of the full school year. Thus, it is a useful
lens through which to better understand the blending of indoor and outdoor learning
into the curriculum, and how this is interpreted and engaged with by children.
Despite its increasing popularity, there is little published evidence to support the
use of FS as a tool for facilitating learning (Leather, 2016). Recent FS literature
explores practitioner and parental perspectives about the values and impact of FS
in early and primary education (Maynard, 2007; O’Brien & Murray, 2007; Nawaz
& Blackwell, 2014; Connolly & Haughton, 2017) and the broader aims of FS pro-
grammes (Waite et al., 2016), with limited engagement with children’s perceptions
about their FS experiences (Slade et al., 2013; Nawaz & Blackwell, 2014). The
available evidence suggests that FS has a positive impact on children’s perceptions
about play in natural environments, their environmental awareness (Ridgers et al.,
2012; Nawaz & Blackwell, 2014) and their enjoyment (Slade et al., 2013). FS prac-
titioners report that engagement increases confidence, self-esteem and indepen-
dence (Maynard, 2007; O’Brien & Murray, 2007) and promotes better social
interaction (Nawaz & Blackwell, 2014) and improved child–adult relationships
(Slade et al., 2013), whilst also minimising risk aversion (Connolly & Haughton,
2017). However, the available literature does not explore how children interpret
their experiences when faced with a fusion of learning environments. This research
therefore provides a novel insight into an outdoor education programme that tra-
verses this divide. It elucidates how engagement in outdoor learning, which is
underpinned by play-pedagogy, facilitates learning from the perceptions of the chil-
dren taking part. Further, it critically evaluates the benefits children realise from the
experience, when asked to reflect on their learning engagement in both classroom
and outdoor settings.

Method

Research design
An exploratory, phenomenological qualitative design was employed, using semi-
structured interviews with children, head teachers and FS practitioners, although this
article focuses solely on the children’s perspectives.
Epistemologically positioned within social constructionism, phenomenology advo-
cates the study of direct, ideographic experience; valuing the subjective perceptions
and meanings created through the experience of a phenomenon (Crotty, 1998).
Phenomenology views descriptions and reflections on lived experience as fundamen-
tal to understanding the meaning and qualities imbued by that experience (Smith
et al., 2009). Thus, in adopting this stance, we sought to engage in reflective discus-
sion with our participants about their experiences of FS and classroom learning to
generate new understanding about the meaning of those experiences.
Interviews explored children’s experiences of classroom learning, outdoor engage-
ment and FS. Questions were broad and open, allowing guided reflection on

© 2018 British Educational Research Association

 Children’s experiences of Forest School 25

experiences. Participatory activities included a word-association task, photographs of

school and FS, and, with the younger children only, a drawing task. Interviews lasted
between 15 and 83 minutes (mean = 45.5 minutes; SD = 17.6).
Both authors conducted interviews and all interviews were audio-recorded and
transcribed. Prior to and during the interviewing phase, the authors regularly engaged
in discussion about interviewing procedure and emerging ideas to ensure consistency
between interviewers. This embedded methodological audit, alongside reflexive dis-
cussions pertaining to epistemological and theoretical conflicts as and when they
occurred, offered opportunity for rigour to be ensured (Guba & Lincoln, 1994;
Tracy, 2010).

Participants
The participants were 33 children in two primary schools in the East Midlands. Chil-
dren were recruited via a letter sent to their parents. Written informed consent was
received from parents and assent from children. The study received full institutional
ethical approval.

School 1
School 1 was a smaller than average primary school in a rural commuter village. The
school had a predominantly White British student body, lower than national average
uptake of free school meals (FSM) and lower than national average number of chil-
dren with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). This school offered FS
to all Year 4 children (Y4; 8–9 year olds) (n = 30), which was outsourced to a local
FS provider in nearby woodland. FS was an established part of school for Y4 pupils,
having been delivered to this year group since it was established 10 years previously.
FS involved six weekly, full-day excursions in the autumn term (October–November)
facilitated by FS practitioners, the class teacher and parent helpers.
Eighteen children consented to participation and were interviewed on a one-to-one
basis. Interviews took place in the January after FS ended.

School 2
School 2 was a larger than average primary school in the suburbs of a town. This
school also had a predominantly White British student body, below average uptake of
FSM and lower than average numbers of children with SEND.
This school offered FS to the Foundation Year (F2; 4–5 year olds), led by the F2
class teacher who had recently completed FS training. It took place in local woodland
a short drive away. It involved six weekly, half-days across the autumn term, where
half of the children (n = 16) attended in November and December and half (n = 12)
in January and February. FS was supported by a lunchtime supervisor from the
school.
A total of 12 interviews involving 15 children were conducted. Due to the younger
age of these children, they were given the choice of being interviewed with a friend or
alone, thus six children were interviewed in pairs (n = 3 interviews). Children who

© 2018 British Educational Research Association

26 J. K. Coates and H. Pimlott-Wilson

attended in November and December were interviewed in the January following their
FS (n = 7); the January and February group were interviewed in the week following
their last FS trip (n = 8).
Table 1 provides information about the participants. Pseudonyms are used
throughout.

Data analysis
Phenomenological thematic analysis was employed using the Braun–Clarke approach
(Braun & Clarke, 2006). This method incorporates five stages:
1. Familiarisation with the data. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, reviewed
against the recordings and re-read by each author. Initial descriptions of the data
were noted and discussed.

Table 1. Participant information

School Year group Pseudonym Sex

School 1 Y4 Zara F
Mai F
Jess F
Kay F
Isobel F
Jack M
Lauren F
Pippa F
Beau F
Molly F
Summer F
Harriet F
Florence F
Paige F
George M
Alice F
Charlotte F
Holly F
School 2 F2 Mason M
Lewis M
Amy F
Harry M
James M
Chloe F
Martha F
Poppy F
Tabitha F
Annie F
Olivia F
Lucy F
Nicola F
Amelia F
Bobby M

© 2018 British Educational Research Association

 Children’s experiences of Forest School 27

2. Generating initial codes. Interesting features were highlighted and coded openly
and systematically across transcripts. This was conducted independently by each
author, and a table summarising reoccurring codes for each transcript was pro-
duced. This was subsequently discussed between both authors to ensure consis-
tency and agreement about emerging themes. This stage ensured data coding was
carried out rigorously and credibly (Tracy, 2010).
3. Searching for themes. Codes were collated and organised into relevant themes. A
table of preliminary themes was produced, and a description of each theme with
notable extracts from transcripts highlighted.
4. Reviewing the themes. Themes were reviewed according to their ‘fit’ with the coded
data and the complete dataset. Theme names were revised and sub-themes
grouped according to best fit.
5. Defining and naming themes. Themes were refined to encapsulate the messages from
the coding in an organised and coherent fashion. A thematic map was developed to
represent the relational ties between themes and sub-themes (see Figure 1).
Throughout this process, the authors met frequently to discuss emergent themes
and findings, to ensure coding and theme development were consistent and relevant
to the aims (Tracy, 2010).

Results
Three interrelated themes concerning children’s learning engagement during FS were
defined. These were: a break from routine; learning through play; collaboration and
team work.

Being outside
Break from
Roune
Freedom and
Choice

Forest School: Being Creave

Social contrucvist Learning through
play pedagogy Play

Being Physically
Acve

Collaboraon and
Managed Risk
Teamwork

Figure 1. Thematic map

© 2018 British Educational Research Association

28 J. K. Coates and H. Pimlott-Wilson

A break from routine

FS provided children with a break from the usual school routine, representing some-
thing novel and new. This related to two specific sub-themes. First, the environmen-
tal context—being outside—and second, the change in adult and child expectations,
represented through increased autonomy for the child.
Participants frequently spoke about the outdoor environment in which FS is deliv-
ered. For both groups, being outside for a significant part of the school day was very
different from what they would ordinarily experience. Indeed, even though the
younger children engaged in a play-based curriculum, much of this involved play
within the boundaries of a classroom. Playing in woodland was a new, exciting and
sometimes scary prospect:

I felt excited and on the first day it was scary for me because, I’d been into that wood before when I
was a baby, but I didn’t, but I never remembered that. And it just felt scary for me, just being in
the woods. (Kay, School 1)

[Forest School] was new for me. . . I like it there because there’s lots of mud and I liked it. (Inter-
viewer: Why was the mud good?) Because it’s all squelchy, and then it was really funny. I like
the woodlice and the spiders because the spiders was the best bit, holding them. (Nicola, School 2)

Children reported the most frequent use of outdoor time at school to be playtimes,
which were spent on designated, predictable tarmacked playing areas. For several,
these boundaries were associated with feelings of safety, yet children discussed how
their emotions varied depending on whether they were in the classroom or outside of
it. Being outside of the classroom stripped away negative feelings associated with
classroom learning and the pressures of school: ‘[Playtime] makes me feel like all the
stress has gone and I can finally stop worrying about maths and start thinking about happi-
ness’ (Beau, School 1).
Being outside appealed to the children, and they associated it with feeling
refreshed, active, playful and child-like; positive feelings which were amplified in FS.
When reflecting on being at school, some children used words like ‘trapped’ and
‘stressed’, which related not only to their feelings about physical entrapment, but also
to their sense of self being trapped when inside the classroom:
(Interviewer: You used the word ‘kid-like’, do you think school allows you to be kid-like?)
Not inside. Like you want to be kid-like like outside because you want to be free and you have
more freedom. . . [At Forest School] you don’t have to work and you don’t have to be trapped
inside—you can be your normal self outside. The thing I like about Forest School is basically that
you can be yourself every single time. (Mai, School 1)

Mai feels that the classroom restricts her true self as she must present a particular
version of herself. She feels that outdoor spaces allow her the freedom to be her own
child-like self. Indeed, for several participants, classroom activity was associated with
‘work’ and feeling ‘grown-up’, where children reflected on their own and others’
expectations for the future. Outdoor activity, particularly when related to FS, how-
ever, was associated with psychological presence and acceptance of themselves as
children in the present. For most, like Mai above, this was related to increased oppor-
tunity to make autonomous decisions when outdoors.

© 2018 British Educational Research Association

 Children’s experiences of Forest School 29

Participants felt that, relative to school, FS gave them more freedom and increased
autonomy. Freedom was perceived in two distinct ways—psychological freedom (free-
dom from the pressures associated with school) and freedom to make their own choices:
You have more choices at Forest School, so when you’re at school you don’t have any choice but
you have to do the lesson; and then at Forest School you have a choice if you want to do it or if you
don’t want to do it. (Summer, School 1)

We can have a little adventure on our own without a teacher. (Nicola, School 2)

Being able to make decisions about what to do was novel for children who were
used to the routines of a state school system, and led them to evaluate their own per-
sonal boundaries and limits. As a result, children felt challenged by the change in
expectation, but also relished the opportunity to develop their independence and self-
confidence:
You’re in charge of it a lot because you’re just in the middle of the woods and you’ve got tree dens
or you’ve got tarpaulin, rope that’s it, and anything else you can find and, you do quite do a lot of
things independently. . . You’re exploring your own, like stepping out of your own comfort zone
and exploring out of it which I quite liked because it was like no one was saying no, you’ve done it
wrong! (Jess, School 1)

The ability to make choices led some children to think about the pace of the activi-
ties they engage in, both at school and during FS; where FS allowed them to engage
at a pace which was determined by them (‘You get to do what you want to do, at the right
time’, Isobel, School 1). This helped children to gradually develop confidence, and to
become accustomed to different ways of learning and being within this new environ-
ment. This is highlighted through children’s discussion of challenging their comfort
zone, or of initially feeling scared about entering the woodland. The removal of the
physical boundaries and relational hierarchies inherent within the traditional school
environment was, indeed, something which several children appeared to struggle with
initially, however, the emphasis on child-initiated and play-focused engagement
helped children to not only acclimatise to being somewhere new, but also to learn in
new ways.

Learning through play

The novelty of being outside and having autonomy presented children with
increased opportunity to play, when compared with classroom activity. This was
discussed by both age groups yet seemed more impactful for the older children
who were acutely aware of their diminished time for play at school. In this sense,
the older children struggled with their conceptualisation of how learning and play
might coalesce. They articulated a dichotomy between indoor classroom time
and its association with work and learning on the one hand and outdoor FS
time, which was associated with child-directed play on the other hand. Neverthe-
less, through reflection on FS, some children recognised their playing at FS was
in fact also an opportunity to learn—both in terms of applying their existing
knowledge and generating new skills and knowledge:

© 2018 British Educational Research Association

30 J. K. Coates and H. Pimlott-Wilson

[At Forest School] you’re doing exploring and you’re learning things at the same time as doing
things that are fun. And then at school you’re learning things a bit more boring and a bit more
hard. (Summer, School 1)

It’s quite different [from school] because we don’t have to do working, maths, like we’re doing
maths but we’re not writing it down anywhere. We needed to know how many ropes and tarps we
needed if we were building our den and we needed to use maths for that. So, you’re actually out
playing while learning. (Florence, School 1)

In light of this, participants began to engage in a critical comparison of learning at

FS in contrast to classroom learning:
You can explore the outer world and nature [at Forest School] rather than, inside [the class-
room] you can just look outside the window and not like touch the real-life stuff and inside you’re,
like, in like a museum. You’re not allowed to touch the real stuff; but you can be creative and
make your own stuff outside and out of the stuff in nature. (Mai, School 1)

It became apparent that what FS offered children was the opportunity to engage in
experiential, hands-on learning that engaged all of their senses in the learning process.
For one child, this became the distinction between what can be considered ‘learning’
and what is considered ‘educational’. Summer (School 1) describes learning as class-
room activity where children ‘normally learn things like numbers and timetables’ whereas
FS is ‘educational’ because it is ‘not about doing lessons, but learning in a fun way’. This
kinaesthetic, experiential learning was related to children’s engagement in the differ-
ent play opportunities made available at FS, which led to the distinct ways in which
learning was conceptualised within the two settings, but yet, these ways of learning
proved complementary to one another.
FS involved children frequently engaging in creative endeavours, including: making
things from natural materials; using saws, knives and other tools to sculpt wood; and
building shelters. Being creative involved engaging in activities which stretched chil-
dren’s imaginative abilities, challenging them physically and cognitively:
We learnt, we learnt about making sticks, stick mans and stick bow and arrows, and we learnt
about doing that, and we chopped things. We chopped things! (Chloe, School 2)

It was a little bit scary because we did sawing with a bow saw, and that was a bit scary. Well it
was really sharp and we only had a glove on one hand. I was doing it with Susie, because we
might slip or something because it can slip very easily. (Lauren, School 1)

Children talked positively about the practical skills learned from crafting and build-
ing, while the created objects took on a life of their own through children’s imaginary
worlds. The FS setting captured children’s creative energies, and through imaginative
and performative story-telling, the woodland became a canvas for children’s imagin-
ings. This was particularly true for Jack, who initially found crafting uninteresting:
I don’t really like the craft bit. (Interviewer: What didn’t you enjoy about that?) It’s just
because there was better stuff to do, but the last day was absolutely amazing! We made, we put this
piece of wood down, we got hammers and nails and then got, oh what are they called? Sticks,
yeah? Nailed them down to make a door; and they say that there’s this thing called a Boggart
[mythical woodland creature], and they’re kind of stuff that make stuff go lost, and we made a
door for them. (Jack, School 1)

© 2018 British Educational Research Association

 Children’s experiences of Forest School 31

This was also evidenced with the younger children:

One day we made Stickman, Stickman, Stickman. . . We got a stick with legs and arms, Mikey
found one already and it was too big, so it was, I don’t know how big it was, but I gave it eyes.
(Olivia, School 2)

The creation of new worlds seemed to have different functions for the two groups.
For the younger children, creating objects consolidated the story-based learning they
did at school by providing a relatable setting to enact known stories (e.g. Stickman by
Julia Donaldson). The older children, on the other hand, discussed how being in the
forest might help them when doing creative writing at school, providing them with
new material and ideas. However, this did not seem to be the primary function of the
children’s imaginary play. Rather, they seemed to be transported into these new
worlds, and talked openly about the pleasure they experienced from freely engaging
their imagination. This was especially evident in the narratives of the F2 children:
That’s when me and Alex were getting the seats for fisherman camping. We are fishing to get a hot
fish. (Interviewer: Fishing to get hot fish, and where were the fish?) In the sea, because there
was a sea there; not a real one, a fake one [made out of] wood. (Interviewer: And what were
the fish?) Some sticks and I got a swordfish! (Mason, School 2)

Imaginary play facilitated children’s cognitive engagement in activities in both

physically active and experiential ways.
FS allowed children to engage in physically active learning. While classroom learning
was associated with sitting and working, in FS there was little opportunity to sit and
be still. Instead, children described FS as moving from one physically active task to
the next:
Forest School, you’re not trapped and you’re not inside of a school, and you’re still learning about
the environment and everything, and it’s amazing to be in the forest because you’re able to run fast
and you can see lots of birds and animals and there are lots of things set for you to do. . . There was
the den part, making it, that was really fun. And then we were walking on a tightrope and then
when we were doing a spider’s net. It was really fun. (Alice, School 1)

Engagement in a range of physical activities not only presented children with the
opportunity to learn about the natural environment, as suggested by Alice, but also
helped children learn about how to navigate a challenging environment. Children
explored how they came to understand and negotiate the new environment, and their
body’s place in it. For some, this was achieved through specific games:
We done quite a lot of walking bumping into trees! Because we done this game and it was an eyes
closed game and you had to not bump into a tree! It was really, really good. (Lewis, School 2)

Others showed a general awareness of how the environment might determine the
ways in which they could move:
I knew as I was walking through the woods that I have to be more careful, that I don’t want to get
stung by nettles or trip over a twig. And I want to be more active and move my body parts but I
don’t want to go too active and be really silly. (Mai, School 1)

The opportunity to be active in a challenging environment where the physical

boundaries of school were absent gave children a greater sense of personal

© 2018 British Educational Research Association

32 J. K. Coates and H. Pimlott-Wilson

responsibility. Children were aware that they needed to be mindful of how they were
active to avoid harm to themselves, others or the environment. Several children
demonstrated growing confidence in their physical capabilities following FS, which
they were then able to translate into their activities both at home and at school. The
ability to navigate, understand and adapt to new environments relates to concepts of
physical literacy and was associated with the greater level of risk that the FS activities
and environment offered (e.g. traversing a rope course, using sharp tools, open fires).
Children were acutely aware of these risks and how to mitigate them so they and their
peers did not come to harm:
I like climbing, and there was this spider web thing where you can climb. I liked that. I got stuck a
few times though, but I managed to sort it out!. . . If you were on the rope course and your friends
were doing something else and the friend that was helping you went to the toilet, you can just ask
(an adult), can you come and help me? And then they can help you because there’s lots of staff
there to help you. And if you were doing whittling and you couldn’t quite get the angle, they’d come
and help you. And if you burnt yourself on the fire, which you wouldn’t, because there’s always a
person there, but yeah, and they won’t let you do it on your own without someone there. (Beau,
School 1)

Here, Beau explains how adult supervision helped to mitigate risk of injury.
Interestingly, peers are framed as the first responder should something go awry.
However, having an adult present conferred confidence to children to engage in
these risky activities with some independence. Apart from the fire-based activity,
many children described the adults’ role as ‘help when it is needed’. This sug-
gests that whilst adults were present to manage the risks, they did not directly
interfere with children’s sense of autonomy in engaging with the activities. This
links to concepts of scaffolded learning, where adults or peers enter the learning
process only at the stage where the child cannot progress independently, suggest-
ing that FS is developmentally appropriate and inclusive, allowing children to
engage in ways which are appropriate to their needs. This was also marked by a
shift in relational hierarchies between children, their peers and their teacher (and
other adult helpers)—where children take more responsibility for their own activ-
ity, there is a change in how power relationships are enacted and, indeed, chil-
dren perceived their teacher differently at FS compared to during classroom
time. At FS, especially for School 1 children, their teacher was a participant,
engaging in the play activity alongside the children, making her more relatable
back in the classroom. Further, the adult as an overseer, rather than an instruc-
tor, afforded children the opportunity to develop their social connection with
peers, and for many children this was one of the most important aspects of their
experience.

Collaboration and teamwork

Interactions with peers were the most frequently discussed learning opportunities for
the participants and seemed to be especially significant for the older group of children
(although not absent from the younger participants’ discussion). For School 1 chil-
dren, FS was an opportunity which facilitated their collaborative and team-working
skills in ways which did not seem possible in a classroom setting. When talking about

© 2018 British Educational Research Association

 Children’s experiences of Forest School 33

classroom learning, children infrequently referred to working with peers. Instead,

classroom learning was an independent endeavour and, where peers were engaged in
the learning process, children were limited to only those peers sitting next to them.
This was something several children noted in their interviews, and for Mai was the
thing she disliked most about school. For her, classroom activity was associated with
individual, rather than group, achievements:
I love [when] we can do different stuff and learn together and not actually just maths and just
work individually. . . I don’t like how we don’t get to choose our partner for work and I want to
work with my friend and I want to make new people my friends and work with them and see how
we’re doing with them. But the thing that I really dislike is kind of how we’re not all together.
(Mai, School 1)

In FS, however, children worked alongside peers constantly on joint activities, aim-
ing to achieve mutual goals. The participants reflected on the ways in which this col-
laborative activity was managed, which for some children showed the ability to
negotiate and be diplomatic in ensuring goals were achieved.
Our whole group, we made a decision. . . we all had one decision so we had, let’s say if I wanted it
[den] to have a roof that goes like that, like a house, I would have picked that and then Olly
might have picked to have a tarpaulin on the floor. So, we would all pick one thing and put it all
together so then it would make a super cool den! (Isobel, School 1)

Working in groups with children they would not ordinarily associate with at school
presented an opportunity to learn more about their peers and how to work together
effectively. Participants recognised the role peers played in their learning processes,
and how, through mutual engagement, they were able to extend both their learning
and their social networks. Many of the Y4 children talked about the benefits of learn-
ing alongside peers and recognised that working with different children might stretch
their learning potential. Jess illustrates this:
You’ve come closer with people from going to Forest School because you had to work in a group
with people who might not have been your friends but are now like your best friends!. . . I always
think I learn better when I’m with my friends, but sometimes I can learn a little bit more than I
already did about something with someone, like a boy or something. (Jess, School 1).

In part, this growth in social network seemed to be associated with the ways in
which children were able to resolve conflict, and the supportive roles they adopted to
ensure peers were safe and able to engage in the activities effectively and enjoyably.
Much of this was related to fairness and equality. Children were mindful of being
inclusive of their peers during activities, so that each person had an equal stake in
achieving the outcomes.
While the older children were more able to articulate how their social interac-
tions contributed to their learning at FS, younger children were more focused
on social conflict and learning social boundaries. This dominated conversation
for several children, where they considered differences in social boundaries and
rules at school compared with FS. Some children talked of strategies to manage
conflict, which often relied upon discipline strategies used in school or working
together as a team.

© 2018 British Educational Research Association

34 J. K. Coates and H. Pimlott-Wilson

Mrs Adams [teacher] is the rules. Number one, no pushing; number two, keep your hands and
feet to yourself. (Interviewer: So, were there rules at Forest School?) Yeah. I like having rules
at Forest School and I like having rules at school. (Interviewer: Why do you like rules?)
Because then that means that other children, they would get told off if they did the wrong thing.
(Annie, School 2)

The exploration of social boundaries and social conflict in FS seemed to facilitate

children’s autonomy and develop within them flexibility and adaptability in dealing
with social relationships in different settings. For example, where peers were reluctant
to get involved and where there was conflict, some children discussed engaging in
challenging activities alone:
(Interviewer: Do you think the other children liked Forest School?) No, because they didn’t
really want to build the roof [of the den] so I builded the roof and they loved just climbing over the
roof and taking off the sticks and then I had to rebuild it. Then they broke the roof, they put a
really big hole in it! So, I had to patch it up with all the leftover sticks. (Lewis, School 2)

While FS fostered the consolidation of social and collaborative skills, it also

prompted children to consider strategies to mitigate social conflict, including working
independently. For the younger group, the opportunity to experience a change in
social boundaries and a shift in how relationships are played out within different
settings resulted in greater feelings of social cohesion and community at school.
These themes have demonstrated the fluidity of learning in different settings and
using different pedagogies. They have highlighted how learning experiences span
beyond the setting and specific pedagogy enacted, and how, through the coming
together of different approaches, children can develop an appreciation for learning in
multiple contexts. Specifically, the experiences of the children we spoke to show how
different approaches to learning and teaching can be complementary and can entwine
to produce positive outcomes.

Discussion
This study qualitatively examined children’s engagement in FS, an initiative under-
pinned by play-pedagogy (Knight, 2016), and how engagement in this informal learn-
ing approach can facilitate learning. It also sought to better understand the possible
benefits of blending formal and informal approaches to learning within the curricu-
lum. Both Leather (2016) and Knight (2016), however, indicate that the specific ped-
agogy which underpins FS needs better articulation, and because of this Knight
(2016) argues that it is difficult for those not directly involved with FS to recognise
the value of the initiative. This study has highlighted the core principles which drive
learning in FS, and has indicated some of the benefits for children, both in terms of
their engagement with this outdoor learning initiative and how these experiences
might impact classroom learning.
Current understanding states that play-pedagogy is the dominant feature of FS
(Knight, 2009; Leather, 2016)—a pedagogy which counters traditional classroom
teaching, particularly for children beyond EY. Indeed, for children in this study, play
was central to their experiences, both in terms of their positive engagement in the ini-
tiative and as an opportunity to learn. However, the findings presented develop this

© 2018 British Educational Research Association

 Children’s experiences of Forest School 35

understanding by highlighting how specific facets of play create meaning in the learn-
ing journeys of children. Through creative and imaginative endeavour, physically
active and risky play, children engage in experiential and kinaesthetic learning (Ord &
Leather, 2011). Situating learning within a novel environment, where the traditional
boundaries of schooling are stripped away, presented children with the opportunity
to not only develop their skill sets, but also reflect on their own educational experi-
ences, transferring their knowledge and understanding between contexts.
This study contributes to debates about learning outside of the classroom, by
demonstrating the worth of experiential learning through kinaesthetic engagement
with the environment. Experiential learning theory defines effective learning as ‘the
process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience.
Knowledge results from the combination of grasping and transforming experience’
(Kolb, 1984, p. 41), thus experiential approaches to learning tend to be those which
are taken outside of the classroom and through which children are engaged actively in
a learning experience. Indeed, Waite (2010) argues that the teacher-led, prescriptive
format of classroom-based activity has displaced the natural experiential learning of
earlier childhood, which FS reinitiates. The findings presented here have demon-
strated that tailored learning environments (to include physical, social and pedagogi-
cal) are imperative for creative skill development in children (Davies et al., 2013). In
their systematic review, Davies et al. (2013) present evidence showing that environ-
ments which are most effective for developing creative thinking skills, and thus cogni-
tive abilities, tend to be those which allow for flexibility in the use of the physical
environment, sensory engagement, access to relevant tools and resources, including
play and games-based learning, and a pedagogy which allows for children to take
some control over their learning and to encounter risks. This study has highlighted
children’s engagement and learning at FS, which encapsulates these factors and illus-
trates how, through imaginative, creative and problem-based play, children begin to
recognise and engage in their own learning journeys.
Davies et al. (2013) argue further that engagement in these types of learning envi-
ronments might have a positive impact on children’s educational attainment and
motivation to learn, and this is supported by the work of Quibell et al. (2017). Whilst
academic attainment is not a distinct aim of outdoor learning initiatives like FS, and
this was not something this study set out to explore, recognising the potential links
between experiential and situated outdoor learning and the wider issues of academic
attainment could act as a ‘buy-in’ for schools who are required to evidence the worth
of such programmes (Quibell et al., 2017). This study contributes to these debates by
demonstrating the worth of providing children with opportunities to learn outside of
the classroom and to engage in novel forms of experiential learning alongside more
traditional classroom learning as a means of not only extending creative cognitive skill
development, but also providing children with the opportunity to question their own
learning and understanding of their worth through autonomous investigation. The
opportunity that FS affords children to reconsider relational learning hierarchies
helps children to recognise their own personal, social and environmental responsibil-
ity; to understand their own physical development, specifically by fostering physical
literacy (Whitehead, 2001); and fosters their social skill development. While previous
studies of outdoor learning support this (Maynard, 2007; O’Brien & Murray, 2007;

© 2018 British Educational Research Association

36 J. K. Coates and H. Pimlott-Wilson

Ridgers et al., 2012; Slade et al., 2013; Nawaz & Blackwell, 2014; Smith et al.,
2016), this article adds valuable insight into the available evidence by providing a
comprehensive account of learning from the perspectives of children. It also has prac-
tical implications for primary schools, who may wish to consider implementing out-
door learning initiatives, like FS, as part of their offering to address development
beyond the academic.
FS is underpinned by the value that activity is child-initiated, child-led and intrinsi-
cally motivating (Knight, 2016; Waite et al., 2016; Forest School Association, 2018),
asserting FS pedagogy to be an alternative to more structured classroom activity, and
indeed, for some children, this dichotomy between learning styles and environments
was apparent. However, the way in which play-pedagogy was enacted through FS
blurred the lines between differing pedagogies. While children in this study gave some
indication that they were able to initiate play activity, for example, through free play,
the ways in which other activities were described suggested that many activities were
structured and facilitated by adults, typical of traditional instruction. However, chil-
dren were able to interpret and engage in these activities in ways which were meaning-
ful to them and, importantly, they benefitted from having some structure alongside
the opportunity to make autonomous decisions about how to engage. This appeared
to help children transition from the expected and known school routines and adapt to
this new learning environment. Guided transition is something constructivist learning
theorists claim is necessary for effective learning (Rogoff, 2008). While this appears
to contradict the value of child-initiated and child-led activity, it supports principles
relating to play-pedagogy and social constructivist learning, which acknowledge the
role of adults and other social partners in the learning process (Bruner, 1983; Wood,
2013). This research showed that adults played a fundamental role in scaffolding chil-
dren’s learning only at times when the child needed assistance, suggesting that whilst
not all activity was child-initiated, the support they received was. Moreover, the find-
ings demonstrated that it was peers, not adults, who played a significant role in sup-
porting learning, and this was due to their joint engagement in play activities at FS.
The school environment can be counterproductive in promoting social contexts for
learning, but research shows that field experience alongside peers can help facilitate
deeper learning (Hausfather, 1996; Quay et al., 2002; Glackin, 2018). Further,
Glackin (2018) indicates that in outdoor spaces teachers radiate more towards facili-
tating learning through collaborative group work, rather than direct instruction. The
findings here suggest that children naturally radiated towards peers and recognised
the important role they played in facilitating their learning, suggesting implicit cohe-
sion between the pedagogic styles of teacher and children in the different contexts.
Further, the social learning context available through FS led children to increase their
social networks, to develop strategies to avoid peer conflict, and provided them with a
greater sense of social cohesion at school. Schools and teachers should consider the
ways in which different pedagogies can be introduced and enacted through alternative
contexts in order to foster children’s collaborative learning abilities. The blending of
pedagogies and learning contexts, as demonstrated here, can be complementary and
can enrich a limited and prescriptive curriculum (Brundrett, 2012).
Children who participated in this study all reported very positive experiences of FS,
which aligns with the available FS literature (e.g. Ridgers et al., 2012; Harris, 2015;

© 2018 British Educational Research Association

 Children’s experiences of Forest School 37

Knight, 2016). Children also had very positive perceptions of school more generally.
However, it is unclear whether children’s experiences would continue to be as signifi-
cant, should their FS engagement become more routine (i.e. extending beyond
6 weeks). Indeed, many studies which explore the impact of FS report a duration of
between 5 and 15 weeks (O’Brien & Murray, 2007; Ridgers et al., 2012; Harris,
2015), yet the Forest School Association states that FS is a long-term process of regu-
lar sessions (Forest School Association, 2018). This study showed that the novelty of
FS created feelings of excitement and change. Children tend to remember more
about events which elicit strong emotional responses, like new or exciting experiences
(Hamond & Fivush, 1991; DfES, 2006; Waite, 2011). Questions are therefore raised
about whether the novelty of these experiences, or the underpinning pedagogy, or
perhaps a mixture of both, are responsible for children’s positive reflections. There-
fore, further longitudinal study is needed to explore the impact of FS embedded
within the school curriculum over the course of a full year or more, but equally to
investigate if the outcomes associated with engagement in FS are maintained once
children are fully re-engaged in their normal school routine after it has ended.
Related to this, it is necessary to highlight the stark difference in the ability of
the F2 children to recall their FS experiences compared with the Y4 children. It
is recognised that younger children have less cognitive ability to recall informa-
tion, which has been demonstrated in several studies (e.g. Hamond & Fivush,
1991; Tessler & Nelson, 1994; Alloway et al., 2004). Additionally, the EY school
curriculum in the UK has a strong play-pedagogy focus (Wood, 2013), thus the
play-focused activities engaged in during FS may not be perceived as a break
from the typical routines of school for younger children, impacting their recall.
Future research should therefore employ methods which do not rely solely on
children’s retrospective recall, like observation, alongside traditional recall
methods.
Finally, the homogeneity of the sample should be highlighted. All children inter-
viewed were British Caucasian, and the schools served areas with little economic
deprivation. Thus, diversity amongst the student body at both schools was relatively
low. Future research should consider the impact of FS on more diverse populations.

Conclusion
This article provides an illuminating insight into the intersections of formal and infor-
mal learning. It explores children’s identification of the physical, social, emotional
and psychological learning they engage with during FS when compared to traditional
classroom learning. Through examination of the blending of traditional and alterna-
tive pedagogies, this study has furthered understanding about the nature of children’s
learning, demonstrating the complementary ways in which outdoor learning and
play-pedagogy can enhance children’s experiences of school. Specifically, this
research has highlighted how play can be a useful medium for learning when it is facil-
itated by peer interaction and joint activity. Additionally, the FS learning environ-
ment presents children with the opportunity to engage their creative thinking abilities
through experiential and kinaesthetic learning, making for a memorable and novel
experience.

© 2018 British Educational Research Association

38 J. K. Coates and H. Pimlott-Wilson

Through better understanding of how pedagogies can coalesce, we are able to also
understand the benefits that outdoor learning can have when merged with main-
stream curricula. From their perspective, children benefit in four key ways: cogni-
tively, in terms of their creative and problem-solving abilities, and increased
autonomous and collaborative learning abilities; physically, through increased physical
activity, negotiation of the environment and development of physical literacy; emo-
tionally, by forging stronger social support networks, recognising their personal, social
and environmental responsibility, and building resilience; and socially, through the
development of core social skills such as conflict management, negotiation and diplo-
macy. These skills are transferable to the traditional school environment, presenting
educators with the opportunity to develop children’s skills beyond the academic. FS
presents a positive learning environment for primary school children, and the enact-
ment of play-pedagogy reinforces children’s natural curiosity and desire to learn. Pri-
mary educators should therefore consider the opportunities they make available for
children to learn outside of the classroom and alongside peers to realise these benefits.

Competing interests statement

The authors have no competing interests.

Funding source
This research was jointly funded by the School of Sport, Exercise and Health
Sciences and the School of Social Sciences, Loughborough University.

References
Alloway, T. P., Gathercole, S. E., Willis, C. & Adams, A. M. (2004) A structural analysis of work-
ing memory and related cognitive skills in young children, Journal of Experimental Child Psychol-
ogy, 87(2), 85–106.
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qualitative Research in Psy-
chology, 3(2), 77–101.
Brooker, L. & Edwards, S. (2010) Engaging play (Maidenhead, Open University Press).
Brundrett, M. (2012) The National Curriculum review and the importance of clear aims: The need
for speed or a time for reflection and consideration?, Education 3–13, 40(5), 445–450. https://
doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2012.735806
Bruner, J. S. (1983) Child’s talk: Learning to use language (New York, Norton).
Brussoni, M., Gibbons, R., Gray, C., Ishikawa, T., Sandseter, E. B. H., Bienenstock, A. et al.
(2015) What is the relationship between risky outdoor play and health in children? A systematic
review, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(6), 6423–6454.
Clements, R. (2004) An investigation of the status of outdoor play, Contemporary Issues in Early
Childhood, 5(1), 68–80.
Connolly, M. & Haughton, C. (2017) The perception, management and performance of risk
amongst Forest School educators, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(2), 105–124.
Crotty, M. (1998) The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process
(London, Sage).
Davies, D., Jindal-Snape, D., Collier, C., Digby, R., Hay, P. & Howe, A. (2013) Creative learning
environments in education—a systematic literature review, Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8,
80–91.

© 2018 British Educational Research Association

 Children’s experiences of Forest School 39

Dewey, J. (1997) Experience and education (New York, Touchstone) [Original work published 1938].
DfES. (2006) Learning outside the classroom manifesto (Nottingham, Department for Education and
Science).
Dowdell, K., Gray, T. & Malone, K. (2011) Nature and its influence on children’s outdoor play,
Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 15(2), 24.
Forest School Association (2018) What is Forest School? Available online at: www.forestschoolasso
ciation.org/what-is-forest-school (accessed 9 January 2018).
Glackin, M. (2018) ‘Control must be maintained’: Exploring teachers’ pedagogical practice outside
the classroom, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 39(1), 61–76.
Gray, P. (2011) The decline of play and the rise of psychopathology in children and adolescents,
American Journal of Play, 3(4), 443–463.
Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research, Handbook of
Qualitative Research, 2(163–194), 105.
Hamond, N. R. & Fivush, R. (1991) Memories of Mickey Mouse: Young children recount their trip
to Disneyworld, Cognitive Development, 6(4), 433–448.
Harris, F. (2015) The nature of learning at forest school: Practitioners’ perspectives, Education 3–
13, 45(2), 272–291.
Hausfather, S. J. (1996) Vygotsky and schooling: Creating a social context for learning, Action in
Teacher Education, 18(2), 1–10.
Isenberg, J. & Quisenberry, N. L. (1988) Play: A necessity for all children, Childhood Education, 64
(3), 138–145.
Kolb, D. (1984) Experiential learning as the science of learning and development (Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
Prentice Hall).
Knight, S. (2009) Forest schools and outdoor learning in the early years (London, Sage).
Knight, S. (2016) Forest School in practice for all ages (London, Sage).
Leather, M. (2016) A critique of Forest School: Something lost in translation, Journal of Outdoor
and Environmental Education, 21(1), 5–18.
Little, H. & Wyver, S. (2008) Outdoor play: Does avoiding the risks reduce the benefits?, Australian
Journal of Early Childhood, 33(2), 33.
Martlew, J., Stephen, C. & Ellis, J. (2011) Play in the primary school classroom? The experience of
teachers supporting children’s learning through a new pedagogy, Early Years, 31(1), 71–83.
Maynard, T. (2007) Forest Schools in Great Britain: An initial exploration, Contemporary Issues in
Early Childhood, 8(4), 320–331.
Maynard, T. & Waters, J. (2007) Learning in the outdoor environment: A missed opportunity?,
Early Years, 27(3), 255–265.
Nawaz, H. & Blackwell, S. (2014) Perceptions about forest schools: Encouraging and promoting
Archimedes Forest Schools, Educational Research and Reviews, 9(15), 498.
Nilsson, M. E. (2009) Creative pedagogy of play—the work of Gunilla Lindqvist, Mind, Culture,
and Activity, 17(1), 14–22.
O’Brien, L. (2009) Learning outdoors: The Forest School approach, Education 3–13, 37(1), 45–60.
O’Brien, L. & Murray, R. (2007) Forest School and its impacts on young children: Case studies in
Britain, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 6(4), 249–265.
Ord, J. & Leather, M. (2011) The substance beneath the labels of experiential learning: The impor-
tance of John Dewey for outdoor educators, Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 15(2), 13.
Pellegrini, A. D. (2009) The role of play in human development (New York, Oxford University Press).
Piaget, J. (1962) Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood (New York, W. W. Norton & Co.).
Powell, S. (2009) The value of play: Constructions of play in government policy in England, Chil-
dren & Society, 23(1), 29–42.
Quay, J., Dickinson, S. & Nettleton, B. (2002) Students caring for each other: Outdoor education
and learning through peer relationships, Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 7(1),
45.
Quibell, T., Charlton, J. & Law, J. (2017) Wilderness Schooling: A controlled trial of the impact of
an outdoor education programme on attainment outcomes in primary school pupils, British
Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 572–587.

© 2018 British Educational Research Association

40 J. K. Coates and H. Pimlott-Wilson

Ridgers, N. D., Knowles, Z. R. & Sayers, J. (2012) Encouraging play in the natural environment: A
child-focused case study of Forest School, Children’s Geographies, 10(1), 49–65.
Rogoff, B. (2008) Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation,
guided participation, and apprenticeship, in: P. Murphy, K. Hall & J. Soler (Eds) Pedagogy and
practice: Culture and identities (London, SAGE), 58–74.
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2016) Promoting self-determined school engagement, in: K. Wentzel &
D. Miele (Eds) Handbook of motivation at school (New York, Routledge), 171–195.
Slade, M., Lowery, C. & Bland, K. (2013) Evaluating the impact of forest schools: A collaboration
between a university and a primary school, Support for Learning, 28(2), 66–72.
Smith, J., Flowers, P. & Larkin, M. (2009) Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method
and research (London, Sage).
Smith, W. R., Moore, R., Cosco, N., Wesoloski, J., Danninger, T., Ward, D. S. et al. (2016) Increas-
ing physical activity in childcare outdoor learning environments: The effect of setting adjacency
relative to other built environment and social factors, Environment and Behaviour, 48(4), 550–578.
Stone, M. R. & Faulkner, G. E. (2014) Outdoor play in children: Associations with objectively-
measured physical activity, sedentary behaviour and weight status, Preventive Medicine, 65,
122–127.
Tessler, M. & Nelson, K. (1994) Making memories: The influence of joint encoding on later recall
by young children, Consciousness and Cognition, 3(3&4), 307–326.
Tracy, S. J. (2010) Qualitative quality: Eight ‘big-tent’ criteria for excellent qualitative research,
Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851.
Valentine, G. & McKendrick, J. (1997) Children’s outdoor play: Exploring parental concerns about
children’s safety and the changing nature of childhood, Geoforum, 28(2), 219–235.
van Oers, B. (2003) Learning resources in the context of play. Promoting effective learning in early
childhood, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 11(1), 7–26.
Veitch, J., Bagley, S., Ball, K. & Salmon, J. (2006) Where do children usually play? A qualitative
study of parents’ perceptions of influences on children’s active free-play, Health and Place, 12
(4), 383–393.
Veitch, J., Salmon, J. & Ball, K. (2007) Children’s active free play in local neighborhoods: A beha-
vioural mapping study, Health Education Research, 23(5), 870–879.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (Cambridge,
MA, Harvard University Press).
Waite, S. (2007) ‘Memories are made of this’: Some reflections on outdoor learning and recall. Edu-
cation 3–13, 35(4), 333–347.
Waite, S. (2010) Losing our way? The downward path for outdoor learning for children aged 2–
11 years, Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 10(2), 111–126.
Waite, S. (2011) Teaching and learning outside the classroom: Personal values, alternative peda-
gogies and standards, Education 3–13, 39(1), 65–82.
Waite, S., Bølling, M. & Bentsen, P. (2016) Comparing apples and pears? A conceptual framework
for understanding forms of outdoor learning through comparison of English Forest Schools
and Danish udeskole, Environmental Education Research, 22(6), 868–892.
Waite, S. & Davis, B. (2007) The contribution of free play and structured activities in Forest School
to learning beyond cognition: An English case, in: B. Ravn, N. Kryger (Eds) Learning beyond
cognition (Copenhagen, The Danish University of Education), 257–274.
Whitebread, D. (2017) Free play and children’s mental health, The Lancet Child & Adolescent
Health, 1(3), 167–169.
Whitehead, M. (2001) The concept of physical literacy, European Journal of Physical Education, 6
(2), 127–138.
Wood, E. (2013) Play, learning and the early childhood curriculum (3rd edn) (London, Sage).
Wood, E. (2014a) The play-pedagogy interface in contemporary debates, in: L. Brooker, M. Blaise
& S. Edwards (Eds) The Sage handbook of play and learning in early childhood (London, Sage),
145–156.
Wood, E. A. (2014b) Free choice and free play in early childhood education: Troubling the dis-
course, International Journal of Early Years Education, 22(1), 4–18.

© 2018 British Educational Research Association