And I’m afraid the pun was intentional, given what she writes on.
I hope to write more about at least some of the ideas of Rachel Kaplan in the near future, but for now, these few thoughts:
Kaplan and Kaplan’s argument sees being outside as having key components in what they call the ‘ restorative experience’ (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989 p182): Being Away; Extent; Fascination; Compatibility. These offer the mentally fatigued (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989 p178) – or more properly those whose directed attention to their tasks has caused them fatigue (p180) – a powerful opportunity for refreshment.
Being Away is often seen as a crucial element in Forest School. Simply being outdoors – especially in the context of Early Childhood education where best practice identifies outdoors as a vital but everyday experience – is not enough; being somewhere different is also important. Stephenson’s argument – that pedagogy and relationships are different outdoors, even in the nursery garden – would not seem enough: different, but not that different.
This is where Extent might play a part – and where the comparative issues of the Forest affordances of Ingunn Fjortoft and the small patches of fenced-off play areas in the UK are most crucial. But if the Forest School site is small, perhaps, like the one hidden away in Little Wittenham, the overall feeling of extent is important?
And so to the last two: fascination and compatibility, that might be combined into something like Laevers’ notion of involvement…
Even so, the objections of Ecclestone and others cannot be ignored: what does the young learner need refreshment for? What needs restoring? Is there a sense in which the confined environment even in the best of schools is viewed as destructive?
nicktomjoe 