The Nature of Udeskole Theory and Practi

This article was downloaded by: [Novo Nordisk A/S]
On: 17 August 2012, At: 02:41

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Adventure Education &

Outdoor Learning
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raol20
The nature of udeskole: outdoor

learning theory and practice in Danish
schools
a a
Peter Bentsen & Frank Sndergaard Jensen
a
University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Version of record first published: 17 Aug 2012
To cite this article: Peter Bentsen & Frank Sndergaard Jensen (2012): The nature of udeskole:
outdoor learning theory and practice in Danish schools, Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor
Learning, 12:3, 199-219
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2012.699806
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning
Vol. 12, No. 3, September 2012, pp. 199219
The nature of udeskole: outdoor

learning theory and practice in Danish
schools
Peter Bentsen* and Frank Sndergaard Jensen
University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Downloaded by [Novo Nordisk A/S] at 02:41 17 August 2012
An increasing number of Danish teachers have started introducing school-based outdoor learning
as a weekly or biweekly outdoor school day for school childrenoften called udeskole in Danish.
Although at least 14% of Danish schools practise this form of outdoor teaching with some classes,
it is not mentioned in the national curriculum and little is presently known about the nature of
udeskole. Drawing on a conceptual framework about different curriculum domains, we explore
outdoor learning theory and practice in Danish schools. We describe and analyse the advocated
pedagogy and didactics of the Danish udeskole movement as well as current practice through a
review of the literature and a nationwide survey of 107 responding teachers. We also reveal dis-
crepancies between the advocated and practised outdoor learning curriculum. Finally, we present
recommendations on how to bridge these gaps and develop the practice further.
Keywords: Curriculum studies; Education outside the classroom; Outdoor learning; Outdoor teaching;
Theory and practice
Introduction
In recent decades, curriculum-based outdoor learning has received increased atten-
tion in urbanised and industrialised countries, and attracted the interest of practition-
ers, policy-makers and researchers. International studies have investigated the nature,
extent and scope of different forms of school-based outdoor learning to gain a better
understanding of different programmes in different places. Studies have thus explored
various expressions of outdoor education and in this way illustrated that practices dif-
fer within local, regional and national contexts (Martin & Ho, 2009; Rea & Waite,
2009; Turcov, Martin, & Neuman, 2005).
*Corresponding author: Danish Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning, University of
Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 23, DK-1958, Frederiksberg C, Denmark. Email: pbe@life.ku.dk
ISSN 1472-9679 (print)/ISSN 1754-0402 (online)

2012 Institute for Outdoor Learning
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2012.699806
www.tandfonline.com
200 P. Bentsen and F. S. Jensen
This paper presents a study of one particular form of outdoor learning in one
particular context, namely udeskole (outdoor school) in Danish schools. More and
more Danish teachers have started introducing curriculum-based outdoor learning
as a weekly or biweekly outdoor school day for school children aged 716. Udeskole
is characterised by compulsory and regular educational activities outside the school
buildings (Bentsen, Mygind, & Randrup, 2009), and it takes place in both natural
and cultural settings; for example, forests, parks, local communities, factories and
farms (Jordet, 2007). Udeskole activities are characterised by teachers making use
of the local environment when teaching specific curriculum subjects. They may, for
example, illustrate mathematical concepts by measuring and calculating the volume
of trees in mathematics, write poems in and about nature for language-related tasks
or contextualise history by visiting historically significant places or buildings. Hence,
the approach is to work with an academic subject matter or concept in its real, con-
crete form to facilitate learning and understanding. Teaching and learning activities,
however, are often cross-disciplinary. Outdoor learning is not a statutory require-
ment in the Danish school system, so the decision to take teaching outdoors rests
with the individual teacher and school. Outdoor teaching and learning are, however,
mentioned indirectly in the overall aims and directly under some of the subjects (i.e.
biology, geography and physical education).
Scandinavian countries are often perceived as countries of reference concern-
ing outdoor learning in school and pre-school systems (i.e. kindergarten to Year
16) and as examples of good practice (Rea & Waite, 2009). There is strong anecdo-
tal evidence of a long-standing commitment to and widespread provision of outdoor
learning in these countries. Results have shown that at least 14% of all Danish
schools have one teacher practising this form of school-based outdoor learning with
some classes (Bentsen, Jensen, Mygind, & Randrup, 2010), with a similar trend
in Norway and Sweden (Bjelland & Klepp, 2000; Limstrand, 2001). Scandinavian
concepts such as forest kindergartens and udeskole have attracted international
attention, and there is evidence that other countries have adapted similar models
and approaches (Henderson & Vikander, 2007; Muoz, 2009; OBrien & Murray,
2007).
Many practical and theoretical questions have arisen in response to this widespread
provision of outdoor learning. Despite this widespread provision of outdoor learn-
ing in Denmark, Norway and Sweden, surprisingly little is presently known about
teachers pedagogical activities, approaches, programmes or theoretical background.
Furthermore, there is very little research on outdoor education itself since most cur-
riculum studies have focused on classroom teaching (Jordet, 2003). In their review
of three journals within the field of outdoor education, Thomas, Potter, and Allison
(2009) identified several future research themes that could potentially influence daily
practice and policy development. One of these themes was schools and curriculum.
Similarly, Brookes (2002, 2004) highlighted a lack of curriculum questions, stud-
ies and perspectives in the field of outdoor education, and Rickinson et al. (2004)
emphasised the importance of understanding the structure, duration and pedagogy
of different outdoor learning programmes.
Outdoor learning theory and practice in Danish schools 201
Figure 1. Curriculum domains and methods used to explore the nature of udeskole theory and
practice in a Danish context.
Source: Modified from Goodlad et al. (1979).
The present paper aims to describe and characterise udeskole in Danish schools,
which has grown as a grassroots movement of dedicated teachers who have initiated
these local pedagogical development projects. Drawing on Goodlad et al.s (1979)
seminal work within curriculum inquiry, we describe and analyse the ideal udeskole
curriculum through a review of the literature on udeskole as we want to evaluate
udeskole practice on its own merits; that is, udeskole theory (see Figure 1). We describe
and characterise the operational udeskole curriculum through a national survey of
Danish teachers with a key focus on teachers current practices, pedagogical foun-
dations and educational justifications. The analysis of outdoor learning theory and
practice in turn forms the basis of a discussion of the discrepancies between the
advocated/intended versus the actual/practised curriculum. Finally, recommenda-
tions for future development of outdoor learning in Danish schools are offered to
help teachers, policy-makers and scholars to improve contemporary outdoor learning
programmes and foster good practice.
Goodlad et al.s conceptual framework of curriculum domains

Goodlad et al.s (1979) conceptual framework, which illustrates relationships between
intentions and realisation as well as reflections and communication around curricu-
lum questions, forms the basis for an analysis of the tension between teachers and
curriculum, theory and practice, and the different levels of curriculum. Using this
interpretative framework, we address the tension between different levels of curricular
thought and practice; that is, the recommended as opposed to the taught curriculum.
Goodlad et al. (1979) were perhaps among the first to suggest several key curriculum
distinctions, describing five different forms constructed by society, scholars, teachers
and pupils: the ideal, the formal, the perceived, the operational and the experienced
(see Figure 1). These domains characterise different ways to conceive curriculum and
different perspectives from which it can be conceptualised and experienced.
The ideal curriculum represents educators intentions of what they desire, know and
believe should be taught. The ideal curriculum is often a result of idealistic teach-
ing planning processes. Goodlad et al. (1979, p. 60) suggested exploring the content
of the ideal curriculum by examining textbooks, workbooks, teachers guides and
the like. The formal curriculum, by comparison, is the ideal curriculum transformed
into written documents: curriculum guides, state or local syllabi, adopted texts, units
of study set forth by a curriculum committee (Goodlad et al., 1979, p. 61). The
formal curriculum is official, authorised in some way and often a consensus doc-
ument. The perceived curriculum refers to the teachers ideas and interpretation of
the curriculum. It is how the curriculum is perceived in the minds of teachers. The
operational curriculum conceptualises teachers daily interactions with children in (and
outside of) the classroom. What is planned and what is practised may not be the same.
There is no way of knowing for sure what the operational curriculum is likeit is of
course also a perceived curriculumby either the teachers or observers. Finally, the
experienced curriculum represents the pupils point of view. It is the curriculum as expe-
rienced by pupils, and it will most probably be experienced differently by different
pupils.
Earlier studies on outdoor learning have also drawn on Goodlad et al.s conceptual
framework. Vestl (2003) used the framework to conceptualise the ought-to-be level
versus the is level (i.e. intention vs. reality) of education, teaching and curriculum in
Norway, and described udeskole as a curriculum in itself because it answers questions
related to the what, how, why, where and when of (outdoor) teaching. Jordet (2002a)
used the framework to emphasise what he was studying; that is, the perceived and
operational curriculum.
Methods
Udeskole theory: review and analysis of literature
Literature on udeskole is growing, but it remains limited; consequently, there is a
lack of research and theoretical foundations in relation to udeskole (Bentsen et al.,
2009). We therefore searched for the ideal udeskole curriculum as expressed in relevant
textbooks, literature and writings.
Most literature on udeskole focuses on practice and thus resembles how-to manuals.
It appears that the concept of udeskole in Danish schools emerged from the writings
and works of Jordet (e.g., Jordet, 1998) as he was one of the first to place udeskole in a
theoretical pedagogical context. He argued for its potential and described the theoreti-
cal, didactical and pedagogical ideas and background for udeskole. This is why we have
chosen Jordets writings (Jordet, 1998, 1999, 2002a, 2002b, 2003, 2007, 2008) as an
expression of the ideal udeskole curriculum. Jordets concept of the Didactics1 of

udeskole (Jordet, 2002a) can be seen as an expression of the basic ideas and the
ideal udeskole curriculum according to Goodlad et al.s framework.
Jordets didactics of udeskole. Jordet (2002a) aimed to develop a didactical theory for
udeskole, thus informing practitioners on a theoretical and didactical level. Although
his theory was based on descriptive and empirical case studies of Norwegian outdoor
learning practices, it was also prescriptive, constituting some kind of expert opin-
ion about outdoor teaching. His research was therefore both empirical-descriptive
and ethical-normative (Jordet, 2003). Jordet (2002a) articulated the main curriculum
question in relation to regular outdoor learning. He wanted to illuminate didactical
thinking and practice, and his point of departure was general education theory, gen-
eral didactics and questions such as why, what, how and where in relation to udeskole.
We explore the following central questions related to Jordets didactics of udeskole:
Why practise udeskole? (Justification and aims.)

What is the content of udeskole? (Content.)
How is udeskole practised? (Methods and organisation.)
Where is udeskole practised? (Learning environment.)
Udeskole practice: survey with outdoor teachers

Survey technique and questionnaires. A draft questionnaire was piloted among selected
teachers, experts and researchers to obtain feedback on the content and design.
The questionnaire was inspired by international outdoor education questionnaires
(Limstrand, 2001; Lugg & Martin, 2001; Vestl, 2003; Zink & Boyes, 2006) and
Danish outdoor recreation questionnaires (Holm, 2000; Jensen, 1999). The ques-
tions were adapted to a school context and the specific Danish situation, and the final
A4-size booklet questionnaire consisted of 50 questions spanning 22 pages. Contact
with teachers was established through a postal questionnaire, accompanied by a letter
of introduction. In order to increase the response rate, we designed the questions very
carefully and sent up to two reminders. Respondents were asked to provide details on:
their personal practice and provision of outdoor learning;

their use of and preferences for green space;
their school and green space close to the school;
the outdoor learning practice at the school level; and
demographic data.
Population and participants. The survey population was udeskole teachers in Danish
schools. The study was carried out in 2008 and based on a survey of 401 teachers
previously identified in a 2007 electronic national survey. The 2007 study included
all Danish schools and one of the aims was to identify schools and teachers practising
regular outdoor learning (Bentsen et al., 2010). Naturally, the population of udeskole
teachers changes over time, and there are different definitions, understandings and
practices of udeskole. We included teachers who satisfied the following criteria based
on Jordet (1998, 2007), Mygind (2005, 2007, 2009) and Bentsen et al. (2009)that
is, teachers who practised educational activities during the 2007/08 school year that:
took place outside the walls of the school (buildings);

took place on a regular basis (every week or every other week);
were structured (integrated into the teaching plan for the school year);
had a specific duration over a certain period (minimum half a day and minimum
six months); and
were a part of the formal curriculum in conjunction with indoor teaching (within
specific subjects and curriculum areas of Danish, mathematics, art, and English, or
developed as interdisciplinary activities).
We excluded teachers practising all other forms of ad hoc outdoor teaching as well as
teachers on leave in 2007/08.
Response rate. Out of a total of 401 participants, 216 individual teachers at 178 differ-
ent schools returned the questionnaire, resulting in an overall response rate of 54%.
Of the 216 individual teachers, 107 teachers at 93 schools were ultimately included
in our analysis according to the criteria above. Comparable surveys of teachers in
Norway (Bjelland & Klepp, 2000; Limstrand, 2001), Australia (Lugg & Martin,
2001), New Zealand (Zink & Boyes, 2006) and Scotland (Higgins, Nicol, & Ross,
2006) obtained response rates between 14% and 89%. Given the strict inclusion cri-
teria, the turnover rate of teachers in the Danish school system and the initial contact
via head teachers, we consider the overall response rate and the number of included
teachers to be satisfactory.
Data processing and background variables. The processing and analysis of data were
done using SPSS. The following background variables of the respondents and their
schools were cross-tabulated on selected data: age, gender, educated/non-educated
teacher, trained/not trained in udeskole, size and type of school. We present the
results of the population as a whole because there were no clear patterns and very
few significant differences between subpopulations. Hence, this survey is explorative
and descriptive, providing a broad characterisation of outdoor teachers practice and
provision rather than an in-depth analysis.
Methodological considerations
Some methodological caution is required when reading, interpreting and communi-
cating the results of the survey. A major strength is that it is based on a nationwide
study that provides an initial broad overview of how outdoor learning is practised and
carried out in Danish schools.
A possible limitation could be the use of self-reported data. Data from question-
naires do not necessarily capture the reality of teachers and teaching practice as
quantitative survey data reduce human experience to numbers or standard descrip-
tive phrases. At best, it will capture teachers interpretation (and presentation) of
their practice, but there may be some kind of social desirability bias. Furthermore,
udeskole is of course not one set of identical programmes and practices, which means
that by presenting the population of outdoor teachers as an entity, we run into the
problem of the average camper [teacher] who does not exist (Schafer, 1969, p. 1).
It is important to be aware that udeskole is not one thing, neither in practice nor
theory. We surveyed teachers perceptions of the practised curriculum; that is, the
operational curriculumproviding an overview of the curriculum being presented at
a given moment by teachers. A quantitative approach illustrates the main tendencies
and patterns in relation to a theme, but one should be aware of its limitations in
that it may exclude other potentially relevant responses and skew the data towards
preconceived ideas.
Finally, despite the strong explanatory qualities of the applied conceptual frame-
work, one should be aware of its simplification. In reality, the different domains
may well overlap and interweave; for example, the teachers presentations of the
operational curriculum undoubtedly contain elements of the ideal curriculum.
Results
Udeskole theory: Jordets didactics of udeskole
Jordet aimed to develop a didactical theory for udeskole to describe the potential
of this concept and stimulate further development of outdoor learning in schools
and teachers practice. Jordets point of departure was general education theory, gen-
eral didactics and a dialectic relationship between theory and practice. Jordet (1998)
defined udeskole as follows:
Outdoor schooling is a working method where parts of the everyday life in school [are]
moved out of the classroominto the local environment. Outdoor schooling implies regu-
lar activities outside the classroom. The working method gives the pupils the opportunity to
use their bodies and senses in learning activities in the real world in order to obtain personal
and concrete experiences. Outdoor schooling allows room for academic activities, commu-
nication, social interaction, experience, spontaneity, play, curiosity and fantasy. Outdoor
schooling is about activating all the school subjects in an integrated training where activi-
ties out-of-doors and indoors are closely linked together. The pupils learn in an authentic
context: that is, they learn about nature in nature, about society in the society and about
the local environment in the local environment (Jordet 1998, translated to English in Jordet
2008, p. 1).
Why practise udeskole? In his definition, Jordet stressed pupils opportunity to expe-
rience and use their body and senses in learning activities. In this sense, udeskole is
a way of understanding learning, and thus education and schooling. He focused on
a holistic and progressive education by accentuating communication, social inter-
action, spontaneity, play, curiosity and fantasy. Furthermore, he called udeskole a
working method, thereby emphasising its humanistic pupil-centred tradition (cf.

a teaching method) and indicating the active role and central role of the student.
However, Jordet (2008, p. 1) argued that udeskole is more than a method; it builds
on a fundamental way of thinking and a philosophy about teaching and learningan
understanding that education exists in a social, political and geographical context;
for example, . . . learning activities in the real world to obtain personal and con-
crete experiences. By contrast, mainstream curricula have historically focused on
the classroom, the book and the timetable (Brookes, 2002). Jordets definition could
be interpreted as a reaction to context-free schooling, education and learning. He
wanted theoretical, practical and aesthetic approaches to walk hand in hand, ulti-
mately contributing to a better school, strengthening pupils learning outcomes and
improving their health and well-being (Jordet, 2008). This renewed focus on localism,
context and the situation could be perceived as a form of counterculture to existing
ways of practising schooling while still emphasising the importance of the written
curriculum and didactical considerations.
To summarise, the pedagogical foundation or platform of Jordets didactics of
udeskole could be labelled progressive outdoor experiential education. Udeskole theory
emphasises that learning does not exist or happen in a vacuum. Drawing on Dewey
(1916, 1938), Klafki (2001) and a constructivist tradition, Jordet (2007) argued
for a progressive pedagogy, emphasising the socio-historical, culturalhistorical and
situated nature of learning.
What is the content of udeskole? Jordet (2008, p. 1) answered the what question of
udeskole curriculum, by placing emphasis on academic activities, everyday life in
school and . . . activating all the school subjects . . ., and by underlining that outdoor
teaching should be curriculum-based and the out-of-classroom activities should be
more than a picnic. In this sense, udeskole can be characterised as curriculum-based
outdoor learning, and the main content of udeskole in Danish schools would be the
overall aim of the Danish schools, the standard requirements concerning the subjects
and standard regulations concerning the so-called Common Objectives for teach-
ing the individual subjects (i.e. national curriculum) (Danish Ministry of Education,
2009). However, Jordet (2002a) also called attention to the pupils general education
and bildung, focusing on holistic education and the whole person; that is, social,
cognitive, physical and motor skill development.
How is udeskole practised? Jordet (2008, p. 1) highlighted that udeskole involves

regular activities outside the classroom and integrated training where activities out-
of-doors and indoors are closely linked together. What is meant by regular, one might
ask? The answer depends on how strictly udeskole is defined. Referring to Bjelland
and Klepp (2000), Jordet (2007) talked about it comprising 1020% of the teach-
ing (i.e. half to one day per week). In udeskole, there should be a focus on concrete
experience and pupil activity, and Jordet argued for an outdoor perspective in an
action-orientated type of teaching.
Udeskole is not a question of either/or, because the indoor and outdoor activities
are supposed to be closely related (Jordet, 2003). It is also often stressed that udeskole
should be planned and organised; that is, it should be part of the schools local plans,
curricula or syllabi.
In summary, udeskole presents a change in terms of the content, organisational
principles and traditions of mainstream schooling; for example, the traditional con-
cept of learning, the traditional division into subjects, traditional time modules of
45 minutes and the traditional one teacher/class ratio.
Where is udeskole practised? In his definition, Jordet focused on the link between space
and educational practice. Highlighting the choice of learning environment for teach-
ing, he posed the question of where? in relation to outdoor learning and curriculum.
In this sense, udeskole expands perspectives on where knowledge can be gained and
where learning can take place by accentuating the importance of the learning envi-
ronment and learning in the real world: The pupils learn in an authentic context:
that is, they learn about nature in nature, about society in the society and about the
local environment in the local environment (Jordet, 2008, p. 1).
Udeskole practice: survey of Danish outdoor teachers

Characteristics of the udeskole teachers. Table 1 shows the main characteristics of the
Danish udeskole teachers. The average age of the teachers was 47 years, with a pre-
dominance of teachers with biology and physical education as their major subjects.
Approximately 39% of the 107 teachers were under 45 years of age, compared with
the total Danish teacher population (N = 50,972) of which 47% are under 45 years
of age (Danish Ministry of Education, 2010). Seventy-six per cent were educated as
teachers and the rest mainly as social educators and nursery teachers. The 107 teach-
ers represented 93 schools (43% small, 28% medium and 29% large, at 73% public
schools and 27% private schools). On average, the schools had practised udeskole for
approximately seven years (median five years; range 140 years).
The survey asked the teachers whether they had received education or in-service
training in udeskole. The responses show that less than 50% had received some kind
of training in udeskole (e.g. conferences, local school and municipal courses, courses
at nature schools or in-service education). Despite this, a majority (95%) of the
respondents considered themselves qualified to teach outdoors. Similarly, teachers
displayed a relatively strong confidence regarding the safety of the pupils. Only 10%
expressed that they felt less secure about the safety of the pupils outdoors compared
with indoors.
The extent and scope of udeskole practice 2007/08. We asked the teachers how udeskole
was embraced at their school. Ninety-eight teachers at 86 schools indicated how
often they practised udeskole. Of these 98 teachers, 53% practised udeskole one day
or more per week while the remaining practised it less often, but at least half a day
every fortnight (cf. our initial methodological definition). Of the 98 teachers, 25%
Table 1. Characteristics of udeskole teachers in Denmark, 2007/08 (n = 107)
Men/women 38% / 62%

Mean age (years) 47.2 (49; 2762)
Educated teacher 76%
Trained in udeskole 48%
Years of udeskole practice 6.2 (5; 135)
Years since graduation 17.3 (16; 139)
Note: Data presented as percentage or mean (median; range).
practised regular outdoor learning only with pre-school classes and children with spe-
cial education needs. Twenty per cent of the 107 outdoor teachers stated that they
were the only teacher practising regular outdoor learning at their school. The remain-
ing 80% specified that approximately five teachers (median four; range 140) and
three social educators (median two; range 020) worked with outdoor learning at
their school. Figure 2 shows the number of teachers who indicated that they prac-
tised udeskole at different grade levels. Danish children begin pre-school the year
they turn six years old and leave school after Grade Level 9 (1415 years old) or
Grade Level 10 (1516 years old). The answers indicate that the number of teachers
practising outdoor learning declines as the grade level increases, with a spike at Year
Fourprobably because the subject natural science/technology starts at this grade
level.
The majority (approximately 87%) of the responding teachers specified that they
only practised udeskole with one to four classes. The respondents specified that they
typically held from 0.5 to 34 udeskole lessons, 45 minutes long, every week (mean
5.4; median four). Furthermore, they had practised outdoor learning on 36 days on
average (median 30; range 4200) in green space during 2007/08.
Why practise udeskole? We asked the teachers to rank 18 statements about outdoor
teaching derived from the literature on udeskole. The responses suggest that the teach-
ers truly believe in udeskole as a method for educating pupils. The main focus is on
knowledge of the local environment, outdoor recreation, physical education, envi-
ronmental education, and development of health, social and academic competencies.
We note that the teachers justification for their outdoor learning practices is very
much in line with Jordets (1998, 2008) definition and reform pedagogy.
The answers to the open questions also suggest very dedicated teachers who truly
believe in udeskole. For instance, one respondent commented: To teach is to show
wonders! Other comments clearly show inspiration from the experiential educational
tradition and can be read as exemplary expressions of reform pedagogyfor example:
in the outdoor classroom there is a presence of tacit knowledge which is very hard to
describe, such as the stinging sensation from touching a stinging nettle, the taste of a
sun-ripe raspberry, or the smell of autumn in the wet grass.
45
40
35
Number of teachers
30
25
20
15
10
0
l1
l2
l3
l4
l5
l6
l7
l8
l9
n
s
l1
tio
la
ve
ve
ve
ve
ve
ve
ve
ve
ve
ve
ca
C
Le
Le
Le
Le
Le
Le
Le
Le
Le
Le
du
ol
de
de
de
de
de
de
de
de
de
ho
le
de
ra
ra
ra
ra
ra
ra
ra
ra
ra
sc
ia
ra
G
ec
e-
G
Pr
Sp
Grade level
Figure 2. Teachers practising udeskole during the school year 2007/08 relative to grade levels
(n = 107). Multiple answers were allowed.
What is the content of udeskole? The teachers were asked to specify the percentage of
time spent on different activities related to udeskole (see Table 2). Answers show that a
large proportion of time is reserved for actual school-related work (56%). An average
of 7% of the time is spent on other activities, mainly collecting firewood, building
fires, cooking and organised play and social activities.
We asked the teachers to indicate which subjects and themes from the Danish
national curriculum (i.e. Common Objectives [Flles Ml]; Danish Ministry of
Education, 2008) they had integrated into udeskole (see Table 3). Results showed
that classic outdoor teaching subjects, such as natural science/technology, physical
education, biology, the natural world and scientific phenomena, and movement and
Table 2. Teachers indications of the typical percentages of time spent at different

udeskole activities during the school year 2007/08 (n = 107)
Activity Mean % (median; range)
Transport to and from location 12.9 (10; 035)

Actual school-related work 55.9 (60; 0100)
Eating 10.6 (10; 030)
Free time/recess 13.4 (10; 051)
Other 7.2 (0; 090)
Table 3. Teachers indication of integrated subject areas in udeskole during the school year
2007/08 (n = 107)
From Common Objectives; the Pre-school Grade Grade Grade Grade All grade
Danish national curriculum class Levels Levels Levels Level levels
13 46 79 10 (rank)

Language and methods of 24 24 (16)
expression

The natural world and scientific 45 45 (7)
phenomena

Creativity 22 22 (17)

Movement and coordination 39 39 (9)

Social skills 37 37 (10)

Togetherness and cooperation 36 36 (11)
The pupils all-round personal 26 37 20 13 2 98 (1)

development

Danish 37 15 6 1 59 (5)

English 0 1 0 1 2 (24)

Christian studies 6 3 1 0 10 (21)

History 18 15 9 2 44 (8)

Social studies 5 8 6 1 20 (18)

Physical education 32 16 7 1 56 (6)

Music 10 3 0 0 13 (19)

Visual arts 27 14 3 0 44 (8)

Design 3 3 1 1 8 (22)

Wood and metalwork 10 11 5 1 27 (14)

Home economics 15 10 2 1 28 (13)

Mathematics 34 19 8 1 62 (3)

Natural science/technology 52 35 8 0 95 (2)

Geography 9 9 12 1 31 (12)

Biology 17 21 20 2 60 (4)

Physics/chemistry 2 4 6 0 12 (20)

French 0 0 0 0 0 (25)

German 0 1 12 0 13 (19)

Road safety 16 9 0 0 25 (15)

Health and sexual education, and 3 1 2 0 6 (23)
family studies

Educational, vocational, and labour 3 6 1 0 10 (21)
market orientation

Interdisciplinary activities 20 13 9 2 44 (8)
Other 12 5 9 4 1 31
Note: Multiple answers were allowed.
coordination were integrated most by respondents. However, the pupils all-round

personal development, interdisciplinary activities, Danish and mathematics were also
ranked high within different grade levels as well as overall. Some subjects were rarely
included in udeskole programmes (e.g. design, music, social studies, Christian studies,
English, French and German). This might have something to do with the training of
teachers and the traditions within different subjects.
Educating for life and holistic education (i.e. head, heart and hands) are com-
mon responses to the open questions, while knowledge of nature, natural science and
sustainability are other legitimating reactions.
How is udeskole practised? Teachers responses to the survey show that very few
schools had a written plan (i.e. an objects clause or a local syllabus). Only 32 teachers
(36%) at 29 schools indicated that their school had this type of written document.
In addition, the outdoor learning practice described is not as regular as recom-
mended. Only approximately one-half of the teachers (53%) practised udeskole one
day a week or more, and one-quarter of them (26%) only practised it with pre-school
children and children with special education needs.
Where is udeskole practised? The teachers were asked to identify what types of areas
they used for their outdoor teaching, and the results indicate that udeskole is practised
mainly in school grounds and in green space (73% each) when carried out in the
local area within walking distance. When moved to a location further away (i.e. using
transport), udeskole is practised mainly in green space (44%) (see Table 4). When we
take into consideration all of the answers (i.e. type of location both locally and further
away), it is interesting to note that 27% did not use school grounds, 8% did not use
the local area and 6% did not use green space.
Comments on the open questions show that knowledge of the local area and
environment often forms an important part of schools and teachers programmes.
Respondents were also asked how they organised udeskole, and approximately 45%
indicated that they mostly used the same place for teaching, while 21% stated that
they always used the same place.
Table 4. Teachers indications of types of locations used for udeskole during the
school year 2007/08 (n = 107)
Type of location Local area; within Areas further away; use of

walking distance (%) transport resources (%)
Green space 73 44
School grounds 73 3
Museums 8 26
Cultural and public 8 15
institutions
Nature schools 8 25
Factories 2 18
Other 3 2
Note: Multiple answers were allowed.

Discussion
The aim of this study was to further our understanding of (outdoor) schooling
udeskole. Jordet highlighted that udeskole is more than a theory about schooling: . . .
if udeskole has to defend its position in school, the working method also has to have
a solid anchoring in practice. Udeskole should work in the everyday life of school for
both teachers and pupils (Jordet, 2003, p. 20; our translation from Norwegian).
Gaps between intentions and reality in Danish outdoor learning

There are two particular areas where the ideal and the operational udeskole curriculum
seem to correspond. First of all, results and comments indicate that Danish out-
door teachers generally draw on the philosophy of progressive education in order to
add variation and focus to other forms of knowledge rather than replace normal
classroom teaching. It seems that they implicitly or explicitly draw on humanistic,
progressive roots; for example, one respondent wrote that their programme was called
the open-air school. Teachers use of and preference for the landscape (Bentsen,
Schipperijn, & Jensen, 2012) also indicate an understanding of the links between
education, nature and children. Secondly, it appears that udeskole is school-related
and linked to the national curriculum, although it only integrates certain subjects and
themes from common objectives.
However, findings also expose discrepancies between the advocated and practised
udeskole curriculum; it seems that there are several gaps between intentions and reality
in this alternative pedagogy. As Jordet (2007, p. 16) pointed out: The progressive
ideas seem more like intentions than realities in the schools of today (our translation
from Norwegian). This is apparent in several ways:
1. The practice appears relatively sporadic, ad hoc and unplanned. There are few
written local plans, and it looks as if the practice is highly dependent on individual
motivated teachers and changes a great deal from year to year. For instance, we
identified 401 udeskole teachers in 2007 but were only able to include 107 teach-
ers in this study due to non-responses or teachers having changed job, retired or
taken maternity leave (cf. our initial inclusion criteria). Similarly, we identified a
discrepancy between the suggested existence of udeskole and the actual existence.
Head teachers identified 290 examples of udeskole compared with only 93 when
we asked the actual outdoor teachers about a specific school year. In addition, the
practice does not seem as regular as is advocated. There are few schools practising
udeskole one day a week except for pre-school and special education needs classes.
The population of udeskole teachers looks very much like a grassroots movement
of solitary teachers at individual schools.
2. Udeskole is not practised across all subjects and grade levels as it is recommended.
Jordet (2003) emphasised that all subjects could take part in udeskole and be inte-
grated into the teaching. Danish udeskole practice occurs primarily in the early
years (i.e. pre-school and Grade Levels 1 to 3), perhaps because it is easier
to gain acceptance at this level, where outdoor learning does not compete with
examination subjects for time and resources (Lynch, 2002).
3. Udeskole is practised mainly in green space, although udeskole theory advocates
many different locations and environments: Almost all parts of the schools sur-
roundings can be made use ofthe natural, the cultural as well as the urban
environments (Jordet, 2008, p. 2).
In summary, it appears that udeskole theory is compromised through a process of

adaptation and implementation as it is moved into the reality of schools and teaching
(Goodlad et al., 1979)especially when it comes to regularity, planning, inclusion
of all subjects and grade levels, and choice of locations and environment. It seems
that teachers do not fully succeed in transforming the ideas of Jordet and udeskole
theory into practice. This is probably what prompted Abelsen (2002) to characterise
udeskole as a wild flower in the Norwegian school system: a concept describing a
string of practices more than an explicit pedagogical and didactic approach based on a
well-defined theoretical framework and documented results. It is one thing to suggest
how good udeskole practice ought to be and another to get teachers to change their
previous and current practice in everyday school life.
This draws attention to a relevant problem within educational and curriculum plan-
ning and its relation to actual practised teaching. Within education, there appear
to be links between the planned, the taught and the learned, a notion that
seems necessary for scholars and curriculum planners. This theorypractice prob-
lem within curriculum studies and educational research is nothing new; there is often
a discrepancy between the objectives of a teaching programme and how these are
carried out in (and outside of) the classroom (Robertson & Krugly-Smolska, 1997).
However, identifying the gaps can be an important first step in taking action and it
looks as if this problem of parallelism between theory and practice is often over-
looked in both indoor and outdoor teaching (Srensen, 1997). Perhaps change is
more likely to happen when problems and areas of improvement are identified and
analysed?
Bridging the gaps: recommendations for future development

To propose a pedagogy is to propose a political vision (Simon, 1992, p. 57). In this
paper, we have identified several issues that may be relevant in bridging the perceived
gaps between the vision of Jordet and actual outdoor learning practice in Danish
schools.
Firstly, it seems outdoor teachers could expand their practice and include all sub-
jects and grade levels as well as places other than school grounds and local green areas.
However, there also seems to be a need for scholars and other advocates of outdoor
learning to acknowledge the daily realities of teachers and schools, and consider what
can realistically be accomplished within the context of schools.
Secondly, another area for development could be curriculum development and

reflective planning at different levels. If udeskole is going to have a major influence,
it may have to be written into the national curriculum of primary and secondary
schools and continuing teacher education, because if the curriculum does not pre-
scribe the context for learning (e.g. outdoors, local environment) the teaching will
most probably remain indoors (Higgins et al., 2006). Inclusion of outdoor teaching
in the written curriculum will give teachers explicit permission to practise it, and
even place them under obligation to do so. This could improve teachers and schol-
ars foundation for planning, delivering and evaluating outdoor teaching. In addition,
local curriculum, planning and syllabus work also seems necessary, at the municipal,
school and teacher levels. There are relatively few schools with a plan for their udeskole
practice; it is instead an ad hoc practice. Perhaps this is due to the non-compulsory and
informal nature of outdoor learning. However, one has to acknowledge that educa-
tion is about arguing for choices (especially in the GermanNordic didaktik tradition).
Danish teachers have professional autonomyfreedom of methodsand are conse-
quently obligated to argue (for their choices). However, the real reason for the absence
of local plans could be the free nature of reform pedagogy and outdoor teachers affil-
iation with romantic ideas accentuating freedom in nature, the child in nature, and
the process instead of clearly defined aims.
Danish society, education and schools are moving towards an increased focus on
accountability and control. This development could result in alternative methods
requiring better argumentation as well as documentation and evaluation from teach-
ers and schools. When it comes to well-argued, good and professional practice, an
idea might be to develop a framework (or several) that outlines good practice in rela-
tion to udeskole without moving towards homogenisation and standardisation, but
rather towards reflective professional practice. The Danish school system allows for
a great deal of local freedom. This freedom, however, also entails great demands on
teachers and head teachers to locally find ways to reach the aims prescribed in the
national curriculumand, as in this case, the ideal udeskole curriculum (for a similar
discussion in a UK context, see Passy & Waite, 2008).
However, there is also a danger of outdoor learning becoming too much like indoor
learning. Rea (2008), for example, criticised policy discourses for forcing publicly
funded outdoor education centres to become extensions of schools and warned of
the dangers of formalising the informal. Therefore, teachers have to find a balance
between plans, on the one hand, and maintaining the Danish tradition that schools
develop through continuing bottom-up processes.
A third recommendation and potential direction for the udeskole movement could
be education, training and in-service training of teachers. Those who wish to position
and embed experiential, progressive approaches in practice and transform teaching
in Danish schools could focus on the education of teachers. It is widely recognised
that changes in pedagogical practice are followed by a need for further education.
Therefore, udeskole could be a part of future teachers education as well as extensive
in-service training of current teachers.
Comparative and cultural perspectives

This paper has dealt with a particular type of programme in a particular kind of
place: udeskole in Danish schools. Hopefully, the research has relevance for a wider
Scandinavian, European and worldwide readership at different stages of considering
outdoor learning in the school curriculum. For this reason, it is relevant to discuss the
extent to which udeskole is culturally specific to Denmark only. Brookes (2002) criti-
cised the outdoor education field for consisting of predominately nationally informed
interpretations. However, Waite and Pleasants (2010) called for comparative per-
spectives on outdoor learning and for the importance of awareness of the impacts
of culture on the fields of outdoor learning and on cultural differences within and
between countries. While the focus in this paper is regular outdoor learning in Danish
schools (i.e. udeskole), similar developments and practices can be seen in many other
western post-industrial countries. Thus, this study may also contribute to comparative
studies and discussions related to different practices of outdoor learning in different
national settings. This might add to our understandings of how curriculum and (out-
door) educational practices are framed and shaped by cultural, social, political and
geographical factors.
The main point is therefore what is particularly characteristic about Danish out-
door learning compared with outdoor learning practices in other countries (cf.
Higgins et al., 2006; Lugg & Martin, 2001; OBrien & Murray, 2007; Polley &
Pickett, 2003; Thorburn & Allison, 2010; Zink & Boyes, 2006)? The answer seems
to be outdoor teaching programmes, which are characterised as follows (Bentsen,
2010):
Widespread (cf. more sporadic); that is, udeskole is practised in all regions and
almost all municipalities, and at least 14% of the Danish schools have one teacher
practising udeskole.
Compulsory (cf. optional); that is, udeskole is practised by classroom teachers teach-
ing subjects and themes from the national curriculum with whole classes. Udeskole
is not an elective subject as outdoor education is in some countries.
Regular (cf. week-long residential programmes); that is, udeskole is practised every
or every other week throughout the school year.
Cross-disciplinary (cf. a subject); that is, udeskole is not a subject as outdoor
education is in some countries.
Carried out by classroom teachers (cf. specialist providers); that is, udeskole is prac-
tised by classroom and subject teachers without involvement of outdoor education
teachers or specialists such as forest school leaders or staff at outdoor education
centres.
Carried out in the local environment (cf. a pristine nature area further away);
that is, udeskole is mainly practised in familiar local environments while many
outdoor learning activities in other countries take place far from where the
children live.
Carried out with early-years school children (cf. secondary education); that is,
udeskole is mainly practised with the lower grade levels, while outdoor education
activities in other countries often have older pupils as their target group.
We have identified a number of cultural issues and questions that could be interest-
ing to discuss and explore further. Perhaps some of the differences between udeskole
and other forms (or constructs) of outdoor learning in schools can be ascribed
to divergences between (and points of departure in) the Anglo-American curricu-
lum tradition versus the GermanNordic Didaktik tradition (Gundem & Hopmann,
1998; Westbury, 2000), a social pedagogical approach versus an early educa-
tion approach (OECD, 2006) or friluftsliv versus outdoor education (Henderson &
Vikander, 2007).
Acknowledgements
Several people contributed to the development of the ideas in this paper. The authors
thank Torgeir Limstrand (Limstrand, 2001), Alison Lugg and Peter Martin (Lugg &
Martin, 2001) and ystein Vestl (Vestl, 2003) for inspiration. The authors gen-
uine thanks also go to the teachers who answered the questionnaires, and they thank
Marie Juul Knudsen for her invaluable assistance in mailing and keying in the ques-
tionnaires. Finally, the authors would also like to thank colleagues Richard Hare, Erik
Mygind, Thomas B. Randrup and Niels Ejby-Ernst for valuable comments, feedback
and suggestions.
Note
1. Jordet (2002a) had a broad understanding of Didaktik, somehow likening it to the English
concept of curriculum if understood broadly like Goodlad et al. (1979). Therefore, we will use
the two concepts synonymously: If Europeans are to make sense of North American curriculum
theory, or Americans to make sense of Didaktik, the approach has to be made in a humanistic,
culturally appreciative spirit which is as sensitive to uniqueness as it is to commonality (Reid,
1998, p. 24). Jordet (2003, p. 18) defined uteskolens didaktikk as, considerations in relation
to udeskole practice in school and education.
Author biographies
Peter Bentsen, PhD, is an Assistant Professor at University of Copenhagen, Danish
Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning. His research interests include out-
door education, education outside the classroom and pedagogical work in nature
and informal learning environments.
Frank Sndergaard Jensen, PhD, is a Senior Researcher at the University of
Copenhagen, Danish Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning. His research
focuses on outdoor recreation monitoring and questionnaire methodology.
References
Abelsen, K. (2002). Uteskole og lrerprofesjonalitet. Visjoner og virkelighet [Uteskole and teacher
professionalism. Visions and reality] (Masters thesis). University of Oslo.
Bentsen, P. (2010, April 28May 5). Outdoor learning in Scandinavia with a focus on Denmark: The
nature of udeskole in Danish schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.
Bentsen, P., Jensen, F. S., Mygind. E., & Randrup, T. B. (2010). The extent and dissemination of
udeskole in Danish schools. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 9(3), 235243.
Bentsen, P., Mygind, E., & Randrup, T. B. (2009). Towards an understanding of udeskole:
Education outside the classroom in a Danish context. Education 313, 37(1), 2944.
Bentsen, P., Schipperijn, J., & Jensen, F. S. (2012). Green space as classroom: Outdoor
school teachers use, preferences and ecostrategies. Landscape Research, iFirst article. doi:
10.1080/01426397.2012.690860.
Bjelland, M., & Klepp, K. (2000). Skolemltidet og fysisk aktivitet i grunnskolen [The school meal and
physical activity in primary and lower secondary education]. Oslo: University of Oslo.
Brookes, A. (2002). Lost in the Australian bush: Outdoor education as curriculum. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 34(4), 405425.
Brookes, A. (2004). Astride a long-dead horse. Mainstream outdoor education theory and the
central curriculum problem. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 8(2), 2233.
Danish Ministry of Education. (2008). Flles ml [Common objectives]. Retrieved May 10, 2011,
from http://www.uvm.dk
Danish Ministry of Education. (2009). The folkeskole. Factsheet. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from
http://www.eng.uvm.dk
Danish Ministry of Education. (2010). Pdagogisk personale i grundskolen [Educational staff in the
school]. Retrieved January 15, 2010, from http://www.uvm.dk.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York:
Free Press.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.
Goodlad, J. I., & Associates. (1979). Curriculum inquiry. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gundem, B. B., & Hopmann, S. (Eds.). (1998). Didaktik and/or curriculum. An international
dialogue. New York: Peter Lang.
Henderson, B., & Vikander, N. (Eds.). (2007). Nature first: Outdoor life the Friluftsliv way. Toronto,
ON: Natural Heritage Books.
Higgins, P., Nicol, R., & Ross, H. (2006). Teachers approaches and attitudes to engaging with the
natural heritage through the curriculum (Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report
No. 161). Inverness: Scottish Natural Heritage.
Holm, S. (2000). Anvendelse og betydning af byens parker og grnne omrder [Use and importance
of urban parks] (Forest & Landscape Research No. 28). Hoersholm: Danish Forest and
Landscape Research Institute.
Jensen, F. S. (1999). Forest recreation in Denmark from the 1970s to the 1990s (Forest & Landscape
Research No. 26). Hoersholm: Danish Forest and Landscape Research Institute.
Jordet, A. N. (1998). Nrmiljet som klasserom. Uteskole i teori og praksis [The nearby environment
as classroom]. Oslo: Cappelen Akademisk Forlag.
Jordet, A. N. (1999). Det tredje klasserom. Noen eksempler p uteskole fra Elverum [The third class-
room. Some examples of udeskole from Elverum] (Rapport nr. 24-1999). Elverum: Hgskolen
i Hedmark.
Jordet, A. N. (2002a). Lutvann-underskelsen. En case-studie av uteskolens didaktikk.
ProsjektbeskrivelseTeorigrunnlag [The Lutvann Project. A case-study of the didactics
of udeskole. Project descriptiontheoretical framework] (Notat nr. 5-2002). Elverum:
Hgskolen i Hedmark.
Jordet, A. N. (2002b). Lutvann-underskelsen. En case-studie av uteskolens didaktikk. Delrapport 1

[The Lutvann Project. A case-study of the didactics of udeskole. Report no. 1] (Rapport nr.
10-2002). Elverum: Hgskolen i Hedmark.
Jordet, A. N. (2003). Lutvann-underskelsen. En case-studie av uteskolens didaktikk. Delrapport 2 [The
Lutvann Project. A case-study of the didactics of udeskole. Report no. 2] (Rapport nr. 9-2003).
Elverum: Hgskolen i Hedmark.
Jordet, A. N. (2007). Nrmiljet som klasserom. En underskelse om uteskolens didaktikk i et dan-
ningsteoretisk og erfaringspedagogisk perspektiv [The local environment as classroom] (Doctoral
Dissertation No. 80). University of Oslo.
Jordet, A. N. (2008, January 2425). Outdoor schooling in NorwayResearch and experiences. Paper
presented at the Healthier, Wiser and Happier Children. Outdoor EducationLearning with
Mind, Heart and Body Conference, Branbjerg University College, Jelling.
Klafki, W. (2001). Dannelsesteori og didaktik: nye studier [Bildung theory and didaktik: New studies].
rhus: Klim.
Limstrand, T. (2001). Uteaktivitet i grunnskolen. Realiteter og udfordringer [Outdoor activity in pri-
mary and lower secondary school. Realities and challenges] (Masters thesis). University of
Oslo.
Lugg, A., & Martin, P. (2001). The nature and scope of outdoor education in Victorian schools.
Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 5(2), 4248.
Lynch, P. (2002). Participation in outdoor educationThe challenge of quantification. Journal of
Physical Education New Zealand, 35(1), 2533.
Martin, P., & Ho, S. (2009). Seeking resilience and sustainability: Outdoor education in Singapore.
Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 9(1), 7992.
Muoz, S. A. (2009). Children in the outdoors. A literature review. Edinburgh: Sustainable
Development Research Centre.
Mygind, E. (Ed.). (2005). Udeundervisning i folkeskolen. Et casestudie om en naturklasse p Rdkilde
Skole og virkningerne af en ugentlig obligatorisk naturdag p yngste klassetrin i perioden 20002003
[Outdoor teaching in public schools. A case study of a nature class of Rdkilde School and the
effects of a weekly mandatory nature day on the youngest pupils in the period 20002003].
Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanums Forlag and University of Copenhagen.
Mygind, E. (2007). A comparison between childrens physical activity levels at school and learn-
ing in an outdoor environment. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 7(2),
161176.
Mygind, E. (2009). A comparison of childrens statements about social relations and teaching in
the classroom and in the outdoor environment. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor
Learning, 9(2), 151169.
OBrien, L., & Murray, R. (2007). Forest School and its impacts on young children: Case studies
in Britain. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 6(4), 249265.
OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2006). Starting strong II.
Early childhood education and care. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Passy, R., & Waite, S. (2008). Excellence and enjoyment continuing professional development mate-
rials in England: Both a bonus and onus for schools. Journal of In-service Education, 34(3),
311325.
Polley, S., & Picket, B. (2003). The nature and scope of outdoor education in South Australia: A
summary of key findings. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 7(2), 1118.
Rea, T. (2008). Alternative visions of learning: Childrens learning experiences in the outdoors.
Educational Futures, 1(2), 4250.
Rea, T., & Waite, S. (2009). Editorial. International perspectives on outdoor and experiential
learning. Education 313, 37(2), 14.
Reid, W. A. (1998). System and structures or myths and fables? A cross-cultural perspective on
curriculum content. In B. B. Gundem & S. Hopmann (Eds.), Didaktik and/or curriculum.
An international dialogue (pp. 1129). New York: Peter Lang.
Rickinson, M., Dillon, J., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M., Sanders, K., & Benefield, P. (2004).
A review of research on outdoor learning. Shrewsbury: Field Studies.
Robertson, C. L., & Krugly-Smolska, E. (1997). Gaps between advocated practices and teaching
realities in environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 3(3), 311326.
Schafer, E. L. (1969). The average camper who doesnt exist (USDA Forest Service Research Paper
NE-142). Upper Darby: Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture.
Simon, R. I. (1992). Teaching against the grain: Texts for pedagogy of possibility. Toronto: OISE Press.
Srensen, N. H. (1997). The problem of parallelism: A problem for pedagogic research and
development seen from the perspective of environmental and health education. Environmental
Education Research, 3(2), 179187.
Thomas, G., Potter, T. G., & Allison, P. (2009). A tale of three journals: A study of papers published
in AJOE, JAEOL and JEE between 1998 and 2007. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education,
13(1), 1629.
Thorburn, M., & Allison, P. (2010). Are we ready to go outdoors now? The prospect for outdoor
education during a period of curriculum renewal in Scotland. The Curriculum Journal, 21(1),
97108.
Turcov, I., Martin, A., & Neuman, J. (2005). Diversity in language: Outdoor terminology in
the Czech Republic and Britain. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 5(1),
101118.
Vestl, . (2003). Uteskole. Potensial og virkelighet [Udeskole. Potential and reality] (Masters thesis).
University of Oslo.
Waite, S., & Pleasants, K. (2010). Call for papers for themed edition of the Journal of Adventure
Education and Outdoor Learning: Cultural perspectives on experiential learning in outdoor
spaces. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning. Retrieved October 10, 2010, from
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/cfp/raolcfp.pdf
Westbury, I. (2000). Teaching as a reflective practice: What might didaktik teach curriculum? In
I. Westbury, S. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a reflective practice. The German
didaktik tradition (pp. 1539). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zink, R., & Boyes, M. (2006). The nature and scope of outdoor education in New Zealand schools.
Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 10(1), 1121.

The Nature of Udeskole Theory and Practi

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

The Nature of Udeskole Theory and Practi

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

This article was downloaded by: [Novo Nordisk A/S]

On: 17 August 2012, At: 02:41

Journal of Adventure Education &

The nature of udeskole: outdoor

Version of record first published: 17 Aug 2012

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2012.699806

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

The nature of udeskole: outdoor

ISSN 1472-9679 (print)/ISSN 1754-0402 (online)

Goodlad et al.s conceptual framework of curriculum domains

expression of the ideal udeskole curriculum. Jordets concept of the Didactics1 of

We explore the following central questions related to Jordets didactics of udeskole:

Why practise udeskole? (Justification and aims.)

Udeskole practice: survey with outdoor teachers

their personal practice and provision of outdoor learning;

took place outside the walls of the school (buildings);

working method, thereby emphasising its humanistic pupil-centred tradition (cf.

How is udeskole practised? Jordet (2008, p. 1) highlighted that udeskole involves

Udeskole practice: survey of Danish outdoor teachers

Table 1. Characteristics of udeskole teachers in Denmark, 2007/08 (n = 107)

Men/women 38% / 62%

Note: Data presented as percentage or mean (median; range).

Table 2. Teachers indications of the typical percentages of time spent at different

Activity Mean % (median; range)

Transport to and from location 12.9 (10; 035)

The pupils all-round personal 26 37 20 13 2 98 (1)

Note: Multiple answers were allowed.

coordination were integrated most by respondents. However, the pupils all-round

Type of location Local area; within Areas further away; use of

Note: Multiple answers were allowed.

Gaps between intentions and reality in Danish outdoor learning

In summary, it appears that udeskole theory is compromised through a process of

Bridging the gaps: recommendations for future development

Secondly, another area for development could be curriculum development and

Comparative and cultural perspectives

Jordet, A. N. (2002b). Lutvann-underskelsen. En case-studie av uteskolens didaktikk. Delrapport 1

S-ar putea să vă placă și