Primary school teachers and outdoor education: Varying levels of teacher leadership in informal networks of peers

ABSTRACT

The study concentrated on an area in Greece with a multiplicity of sites for outdoor education. Informal networks of teachers were detected through a snowball technique and data were collected by means of a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. A typology was first enriched to account for teacher interaction. This typology was then operationalized to assess teacher leadership in outdoor education. Participants were classified in three clusters, namely, “strugglers,” “domesticators,” and “succeeders”. Leadership covariated with ability to overcome obstacles, master “affordances” of destinations, and focus on on-site instruction. Peer interaction offered opportunities for reflection. Leadership categories revealed a transient character, which implied that peer interaction might facilitate empowerment. However, there were indications of protecting existing practice against innovation. Implications for leadership development are discussed.

KEYWORDS:

• environmental education
• informal teacher networks
• outdoor education
• peer interaction, primary education
• teacher leadership

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank all primary school teachers who took part in the study. I am grateful to Professor Alexandros Georgopoulos and Professor Vasiliki Papadimitriou for their multifarious support. The executive editor and two consulting editors provided insightful comments on an earlier draft of this article.

Notes

1. In the frame of this article, outdoor education will refer to outdoor activities in environmental education or science education. In the latter case (science education), outdoor activities pertain to environmental science and ecology.

2. The typology developed by Skamp (2009) has been especially outlined for outdoor education and this is why it provided the basis of the current research. However, this typology was enriched by numerous contributions in outdoor education to account for peer interaction in informal teacher networks. A noteworthy example in this direction has been the work of Howe & Stubbs (2003) on leadership development in teacher communities of practice.

3. The original typology used by Skamp (2009) included five categories instead of three. In the present study the sample did not include primary teachers who ceased to engage in outdoor education after their first attempt, whereas the two highest levels of leadership were merged into one (“succeeders”). Since all typologies serve as analytical tools, categories of leadership are not intended to denote fixed characteristics of respondents, which was also very obvious in the findings reported by Skamp (2009). This implies that leadership characteristics might often reveal a transient character.

4. Criteria used in the typology should be able to effectively distinguish among varying levels of teacher leadership in outdoor education. Given that prerequisite, “strugglers” would always appear as being lesser capable of planning, executing, and assessing outdoor education as compared to “domesticators” or “succeeders.” However, this should not imply any “deficit view” of “strugglers.’ Outdoor education in Greek curricula is prescribed as a desired aspect of instruction but it is not foreseen as an indispensable obligation for teachers. Many teachers would prefer to refrain from taking their students outdoors and these teachers need not bother to address all issues related to outdoor education. In this regard, “strugglers” would be already distinguished from teachers who would abstain from implementing outdoor education. All teachers in the present study who were classified as “strugglers” were part of informal peer networks and did engage in outdoor education, which is in itself a sign of teacher leadership. In this regard, leadership would not necessarily denote any formal or institutional recognition. Instead, we would consider as a leader any teacher who would build on peer interaction and learn how to adjust his or her instruction based on shared educational experiences. Indeed, peer interaction initiates a comparison of instructional strategies and sustains reflection upon one's own instruction. Such a reflection presents a drive for leadership development (see Results section; Transient character of teacher leadership). Therefore, peer interaction in informal teacher networks is probable to lead to teacher empowerment and leadership development.

5. The environmental education curriculum involves a wide array of field studies across numerous topics, such as local ecosystems and endangered species, waste management, soil pollution, and the water cycle. Apart from environmental education, outdoor education also features in environmental studies. In that case, outdoor activities concentrate on plant and animal classification and distribution, interactions among organisms and ecosystem compartments, human-nature interactions and environmental degradation, as well as changes in biotopes and biodiversity. Finally, a number of topics in biology concentrate on reconstruction of food chains and food webs as well as interspecific relationships. It should also be highlighted that there are 56 Environmental Education Centers operating all over Greece, which offer diverse opportunities to primary school students for outdoor education. To the author's knowledge, the present study is the first to address teacher engagement in outdoor education with regard to Greek primary schools.

6. Although frequency of implementing outdoor education was assessed within the past year (first section of the questionnaire), the sample included teachers who were engaged in outdoor education at least once in the past semester so that they could recall details concerning their last outdoor education experience (third section of the questionnaire).

7. These were the codes for open-ended questionnaire items: Item 4: Justification of perceived importance of outdoor education: (1) provisions in the primary school curriculum, (2) unique opportunities for student learning; Item 5: Comment on readiness to engage in outdoor education: (1) curriculum specifications, (2) availability of peer teachers to cooperate; Item 6: Perceived readiness of colleagues to engage in outdoor education: (1) poor, (2) below average, (3) average, (4) above average, (5) excellent; Item 7: goals of outdoor education: (1) knowledge, (2) skills, (3) cooperation among students, (4) hands-on experiences, (5) community issues; Item 8: strengths of outdoor education: (1) learning-by-doing, (2) student involvement, (3) student motivation, (4) student excitement, (5) novel experiences for students; Item 9: obstacles in implementing outdoor education: (1) transportation, (2) cost, (3) safety, (4) class management, (5) time; Item 10: content of discussion among colleagues: (1) outdoor education sites, (2) planning, (3) assessment, (4) on-site instruction; Item 11: site of last outdoor education experience: 38 different sites listed in the study area; Item 12: duration of last outdoor education experience: 1 to 6 hours; Item 13: description of activities after reaching outdoor education sites: (1) pedagogical strategies are simply given by assessing sites, (2) prototypical sequence of activities to be followed when reaching a site, (3) filtering out “affordances” of “learnscapes” and adapting learning and instruction; Item 14: description of discussions with colleagues before, during, and after that outdoor education experience: (1) getting support from peers, (2) providing support to peers, (3) reflecting upon one's own approach while discussing with peers. The same codes were used for analyzing semi-structured interviews.