1. An evaluationof Kent Wildlife Trust’s Extended ForestSchoolProgramme
January 2016
Dr Nicola Kemp, Alan Pagden & Georgina Hudson

2. Executive Summary
This report is based upon research conducted as part of an ongoing academic partnership
between Canterbury Christ Church University (CCCU), Kent Wildlife Trust (KWT) and two
participating primary schools. In this second phase of the partnership 2 cohorts of children at
the two schools were given the opportunity to attend an extended Forest School programme
which ran over four school terms from January to July rather than the usual six week
programme. Data collection centred on a series of weekly observations of the children by
teaching staff from the school who were each assigned a small group of children to observe
during the sessions. This was supplemented by independent observations undertaken by the
research intern during two site visits (weeks 6 &12) as well as weekly reflections by the
Forest School Leader. Informal conversation about forest school was captured by the
research intern and she also conducted a short interview with one of the Teaching Assistants.
Rather than simply relying upon adult perspectives of the children’s experiences, the children
were encouraged to articulate their own views of forest school through the use of
photography, drawing and conversation with the adults present.
Qualitative analysis of the data showed the positive impact of the programme in terms of the
children’s connections with themselves, with each other and with the natural environment. A
notable feature of this extended forest school programme was the autonomy the children
developed as learners and the ownership they started to take over their own learning.
Equally, it was clear that where teaching staff chose not to engage fully with the sessions then
this impacted on the children’s experiences. The role of adults in the Forest School
environment is a subject worthy of further research. The observations of the participating
children which were at the heart of the data set raise particular questions about what is seen
and what remains unobserved. There were many instances where examples of creativity and
engagement observed by the research intern went completely unnoticed in the teacher
evaluation. This raises important methodological questions for future evaluations. The report
concludes with five recommendations derived from the analysis to support the development
of the KWT forest school programme into the future.

3. 1. Introduction and Context
This report is based upon research conducted as part of an ongoing academic partnership
between Canterbury Christ Church University (CCCU), Kent Wildlife Trust (KWT) and two
participating primary schools. In this second phase of the partnership 2 cohorts of children at
the two schools were given the opportunity to attend an extended Forest School programme
which ran over four school terms from January to July rather than the usual six week
programme. The two cohorts attended on alternate weeks over the four terms so every child
had the opportunity to attend twelve sessions. Building on a recommendation in the previous
report (Kemp, 2014), accompanying teaching staff were asked to observe the participating
children over the course of the programme. The generation of this observational data was felt
to offer an interesting research opportunity and a successful application was made to CCCU’s
Student Research Intern Programme to fund a small-scale evaluation. The research project
itself took place over a ten week period from May-July 2015. A CCCU funded student
research intern was employed to analyse and evaluate the data collected during the Forest
School sessions. It should be noted that the scope and depth of analysis has been dependent
upon the nature and extent of data collected in the field by others. It has only possible to
analyse the data collected; a point to which we return later.
Any attempt to evaluate Forest School must begin by recognising the current national policy
context in England and the challenges that this presents for schools. Head teachers and
teachers seeking to build into their timetables opportunities for ‘child-centred’ learning of the
sort espoused by the forest school are, arguably, working against the grain of national
orthodoxy; the challenges that they face are complex and multifaceted. The aim of this small
scale study was to take a close look at how some of these challenges are addressed in practice
and to describe some of the processes involved. The study does not seek to test claims about
the efficacy of forest school per se; rather its aim, focussing on a particular case, is to throw
some light on the complex social and bio-physical processes that afford and/or constrain
possibilities for children’s learning in the setting of a Forest School. It asks the questions
what is happening and why?
2. Review of the literature
Research focusing on Forest School (FS) is recognised as being emergent rather than fully
developed (Ridgers et al, 2012). This is unsurprising given its recent genesis. To date the
focus has been on defining the boundaries of what Forest School actually is and on

4. generating practitioner accounts of experience. This is important work which lays a
foundation of understanding and has put Forest School on the research map. It tells a story of
positive change whereby children benefit in a number of ways. In their Forestry Commission
funded study O’Brien (2009) and O’Brien & Murray (2007) identified eight reported benefits
of Forest School. These include improvements in self-esteem and self-confidence; social
skills, language and communication skills; motivation; knowledge and understanding;
physical motor skills. They also found that practitioners saw the children differently (new
perspectives) and that the children took their experiences home (the ripple effect).
Subsequent studies tend to have built upon this framework of understanding confirming or
contradicting particular aspects (Maynard 2007, Ridgers et al, 2012). Although important,
much of this work has been largely uncritical in its exploration of the territory. Little is
understood about what is happening and why? What is it about Forest School which
produces these benefits?
3. Methodology
As intimated above this was a small scale qualitative study the aim of which was to elicit the
perspectives of different participants in the forest school setting and to map patterns of
engagement across a period of seven months. It was based on an approach developed in the
previous research phase which generated a methodological toolkit for forest school
evaluations (Kemp, 2014). A review of methodologies adopted by other researchers in a
Forest School context had emphasised the value of multiple and diverse methods (Murray,
2003, Davies & Waite, 2005, Kenny, 2010). It had also emphasised the need to give a voice
to “a rather absent group in human geography, namely the children.” (Christensen et al 2014
p.?). As O’Brien & Murray (2007) argue “the voice of the children and their experiences
needs to be a stronger part of any future Forest School Evaluation” (p.254). The toolkit was
then based loosely on the multi-method ‘mosaic approach’ which allows the views and
experiences of young children to be meaningfully captured in early childhood contexts (Clark
& Moss, 2001). The toolkit consists of a series of laminated cards each based on a single
data collection tool (including stills camera, digital sound recorder, written notes, reflective
journals, natural materials from the environment) with recommendations and suggestions
about its use, together with a box of associated equipment. The tools can be drawn on,
adapted and applied according to group and individual interests, needs and project aims. It

5. recognises the need to be able to respond to activity in the sessions using the most appropriate
tools.
Nineteen children from a mixed year 2/3 group attended the forest school sessions which
were held at the KWT forest school site from January through to July 2015. They were
accompanied by their class teacher, Teaching Assistants as well as a level 3 trained Forest
School Leader who works as a Teaching Assistant at the school. Also present on site were
the KWT Forest School Leader and a KWT volunteer.
Table 1 illustrates the types of data and the ways in which they were collected during the
forest school sessions for this phase of the research.
Table 1: Project Dataset
Type of data How collected Reference in text
Description of children’s
behaviour at forest school
sessions
Weekly teacher observations
Researcher observations
Pre programme evaluation
Post programme evaluation
TO
RO
PRE
POST
Description of forest school
sessions
Forest School leader reflections
Researcher observations
FLR
RO
Accounts of forest school Interview with FS trained
Teaching Assistant
Teacher questionnaires
Interview
TQ
Visual record of forest
school
Photo elicitation exercise (taken
by children)
Children’s drawings
PE
Drawing
Talk about forest school Verbatim notes from forest
school
Talk

6. Data collection centred on a series of weekly observations of the children by teaching staff
from the school who were each assigned a small group of children to observe during the
sessions. This was supplemented by independent observations undertaken by the research
intern during two site visits (weeks 6 &12) as well as weekly reflections by the Forest School
Leader. Informal conversation about forest school was captured by the research intern and
she also conducted a short interview with one of the Teaching Assistants.
Rather than simply relying upon adult perspectives of the children’s experiences, the children
were encouraged to articulate their own views of forest school through the use of
photography, drawing and conversation with the adults present. The aim was to recognise
that children experiences of places are diverse and will differ from those of adults. A photo
elicitation activity was introduced in week 7 and made available in subsequent weeks in
which the children were encouraged to take photos of their forest school experience and to
talk to the researcher about why they had taken the particular photos. A reflective drawing
activity was also introduced as part of the session in week 7. As the children were allowed
to collect data, some power was handed to them and they were able to make choices, select
their personal areas of importance and to explain their own meaning of the experience.
The dataset was analysed in a variety of ways in order to construct the fullest understanding
possible. As a starting point, data was analysed using the seven aims for the overall forest
school programme (these draw upon Murray & O’Brien 2007). These are: Relationship with
Others; Skills and Knowledge; Ownership/Pride in Local Environment; Self-Esteem and
Confidence; Co-operative Working and Awareness of Others; Attitude towards Learning;
Motivation and Concentration. Subsequent stages of analysis considered individual
trajectories as well as emergent themes across the dataset.
4. Analysis
“…for me, it’s just magic” (Interview Mrs Chambers)
Interestingly, initial analysis of the dataset reconfirmed the pre-existing narrative of forest
school making a positive difference. The weekly post-session reflections provided by the
forest school leader indicate that all seven aims had been met by the end of the programme

7. with increasingly positive comments in all areas. This was also strongly reflected in the
interview with Teaching Assistant Mrs Chambers who refers to forest school as “just magic”
and in the weekly teacher observations of individual children and pre and post programme
feedback which record a positive pattern of change. Within this narrative there appear to be
three key themes or sub-plots which relate to the realisation of these aims; these emerged
particularly from analysis of the photo elicitation exercise.
Table 2: Themes for analysis
Connecting with others Connecting with the
environment
Connecting with self
Relationship with others Skills and knowledge Self-esteem and confidence
Cooperative working and
awareness of others
Ownership and pride
in local environment
Motivation and concentration
Attitude to learning
4.1 Connecting with others: cooperation and collaboration
“It’s fun playing with friends. It wouldn’t be so fun on your own” (PE Zayne)
It was the changes in social relationships that was a particularly dominant theme in this
analysis. The reflections noted that in the beginning the children were forming ‘cliques’ and
arguing frequently (FLR 5/3/15). Social relations were difficult. At week six (the mid-point)
reflections note fewer arguments and reduced friction within the group. This trend continues
and by the end of the programme the final comment confirms that “the group appear to have
successfully bonded” (FLR 16/7/15). The improved social relationships are also reflected in
comments made by teaching staff.
“…teamwork for them is a really good thing. They learn to work together as a team
rather than arguing all the time.” (Interview Mrs Chambers)
Mrs Wells, the class teacher, attributes the improved social relationships to the fact that the
children are mixing more widely.
“I noticed that the children while at Forest School mixed with different children
outside of their friendship circles. They also argued less while at Forest School” (TQ
Mrs Cole)

8. There is also recognition that the changes experienced at Forest School are reflected back in
the school environment. “In the woods they all become equal and so when they go back to
school…that remains the same…they respect people for what they are rather than what they
think they should be” (Interview Mrs Chambers)
It is not just the relationships between pupils which were observed to have changed. One of
the teaching staff noted “It was really nice to see Mrs Cole (class teacher) having time to sit
and converse with the children about their lives, likes and dislikes (no pressure on adult or
child).” (TO 4/6/15). The normal relationship of teacher/pupil changes in the Forest School
with a flattened hierarchy and changed roles. These social benefits of Forest School suggest
that there is potential to particularly target children making transitions within their education
– Foundation Stage to Key Stage 1; Key Stage 1 to Key Stage 2, and Primary to Secondary.
Existing research has documented the benefits of outdoor residential experiences at these
critical periods of change so this could be an area for development.
Recommendation 1: To target classes making an educational transition emphasising the
socio-emotional benefits of Forest School.
4.2 Connecting with the environment
“It’s nice to climb – I only really get to climb trees at Forest School” (PE Samantha)
Another theme which was emphasised by adults and children alike was the importance of the
connections made with the physical environment. At one level this was simply about
becoming “very comfortable in the outdoor environment” (FLR 18/06/15). Many of the
children were recorded as having a limited relationship with the outdoors at the start of the
programme. Samantha was felt to be “out of her comfort zone in week 1 but by week 8 she
was totally different’ (PRE). There was also evidence of the children’s growing
understanding of the natural environment as reflected in Howie’s explanation to his friend
when trying to build a den “In the wild you don’t use glue you use string and sticky weed”.
(Howie, 4/6/15). During the photo elicitation exercise Harriet chose to take a photo of
‘nature growing’ as “she wants to make other people think about nature.”

9. Image 1: Nature Growing
The environment inspired many examples of creative and imaginative play as the following
observation of play on an upturned tree illustrates.
The girls used a fallen tree as the basis for their play, first referring to it as a “whale-
shark” and then as a “grand kingdom palace” which was under attack by armed
soldiers. Julie pointed to the roots jutting in to the sky and said “Look… there’s it’s
teeth! I’m going to climb on to its back!” Once at the top of the trunk, one of the
children shouted “Help! There are intruders in the palace!” This inspired the other
girls to clamber back down the tree trunk and arm themselves with sticks, “we’ll set
alarms and traps and fight them off!” The girls found smaller sticks and placed them
in to the nooks and crannies of the surrounding trees, “the alarms are all set your
majesty”. This game continued for a while, with one child shouting orders from the
top of the tree trunk to her “soldiers” below. (RO 1)
Interestingly this was not seen by any of the teaching staff and when told about it, they
expressed surprise as “those girls are usually very quiet.”(RO1). It seems that the physical
environment of the forest school site provides different opportunities for learning and play.
“the children become more creative… because they’ve actually… DONE… you know,
they’ve actually been kinaesthetic if you like, if you know, if you want those sorts of
words… they’ve actually touched and seen and felt…” (Interview Mrs Chambers)
This creativity is felt to be reflected in the work produced by the children back in school.
The implication is clear: the experience of being in the woodland environment has stimulated
the children in the taught curriculum.
…they’ve written some wonderful poems and they’ve done… things that they wouldn’t
do if they hadn’t been in the woods, if they hadn’t heard what goes on and touched
what goes on… I mean you just gotta see some of their work but it is just like
amazing” (Interview Mrs Chambers)

10. However, it is important to note here that although there were examples of children’s
connections to the physical environment, these were limited. More data is needed to be able
to build a robust analysis particularly in terms of the baseline position and the changes which
can then be attributed.
Recommendation 2: To develop a baseline assessment of ‘connectedness with nature’ to
be used before children engage with a Forest School Programme. Also to continue to
collect data beyond the Forest School sessions themselves to be able to document what
happens back at school and beyond in the children’s home lives.
4.3 Connecting with self: becoming an autonomous learner
“Julie has blossomed with Forest School” (TO 4/6/15)
The final theme concerns changes to individual motivation, self-confidence, skill and
knowledge. Although the pupils were recognised as displaying high levels of motivation and
a positive attitude to learning from the beginning, these dimensions evolved throughout the
12 week programme. Initially the group is motivated by the novelty of new activities which
are adult initiated. Towards week four it is noted that the children are motivated to practice
and revisit skills and by week eight pupils are initiating their own learning by independently
selecting the activities they wish to participate in. This development of learner autonomy
something which experienced Forest School trained Mrs Chambers recognises is particular to
this extended forest school programme.
The only thing I’d say about this long term thing is as the children become more and
more… take ownership of the forest school ….you’ve got to up your game all the time.
The longer they spend in the woods which is good… it just makes us think more,
makes us learn more as well so that’s a good thing (Interview Mrs Chambers)
This notion of ownership is one which is also emphasised in the FS leader reflections where it
is noted “children taking ownership of the session” (FLR 04/06/15). It is worth highlighting
that this is not an aspect which was observed in the previous phase of the research where the
programme was limited to 6 weeks. The implication is that it is the longer exposure to forest
school which led to this greater sense of autonomy and ownership.

11. Recommendation 3: To develop an extended Forest School Programme (12 weeks+)
with documented benefits for schools to offer as an alternative to the 6 week programme
4.4 The role of adults
Although the focus of the research was on children’s experiences of Forest School, the data
clearly highlighted the role teaching staff play in affecting this. The following case study of
Mrs Cole illustrates how challenging some members of staff found the experience.
Mrs Cole is an established member of the teaching staff. She identified herself as “a bit of a
sceptic” at the beginning of the programme and although she recognises some benefit by the
end (for those who find school work a challenge), she voices her concern that “some of the
more academic children have not enjoyed the weekly experience as much.” When speaking to
the research intern she discussed the need “to play catch up” (RO1) after a day out at Forest
School although she records a session as “a welcome break from testing” (TO 21/5/15).
However, although she recognises learning takes place at Forest School it is not the same as
the learning she values in her classroom role. This is evident in the following comment.
“The classroom needs to be a more structured environment where a more formal learning
ethos is required to ensure an educational pen and paper outlook. Forest School is more
children-led rather than adult” (TQ)
This last statement is telling as it illustrates her discomfort with the child-led pedagogical
approach of Forest School. Indeed, a comment from one of her colleagues emphasises how
difficult she found her changed role at Forest School. “…[it’s] very good for [Mrs Cole] to
observe and participate with activities rather than controlling. Different boundaries allowed”
(TS PR 3). She was noted as ‘choosing to stay on the picnic bench’ (RO1) during free play
and did not always join in with activities. As well as struggling with her change of role, it is
clear that on a personal level she found the physical environment of Forest School
challenging. “The weather! The mud! The soggy socks and wet feet! The toilet! (TS PR 1).
Her ambivalence about the programme is reflected in her depersonalised conclusion
“everyone believes it has been a worthwhile experience.” Unwilling to give her own opinion
she issues a collective response.
The research intern noted on her first visit that teaching staff were unsure of the observation
process, some asked for guidance whilst others asked for examples of what she wanted to see

12. in the data. Staff were unaware of the forest school prompts at the bottom of the observation
sheets and were not confident in what to look for when observing the children, resulting in an
unwillingness to participate in the sessions.
If teaching staff are choosing not to engage fully with the sessions then it clearly affects the
efficacy of the programme for the children. There needs to be an understanding that the
learning is valuable and that the school curriculum can be delivered beyond the walls of the
classroom. In the previous report a key recommendation was the need to develop outdoor
learning/forest school CPD for teaching staff to increase their confidence and self-efficacy.
The fact that all staff have had Forest School CPD as part of their in-service training suggests
that more targeted CPD is required which can explore the curricula connections.
Recommendation 4: Develop targeted CPD sessionto explore the curricula connections
either by phase (KS1,2, Foundation) or by subject area (particularly focusing upon the
prime subjects of mathematics, literacy and science).
5. Discussion
5.1 Forest School as Unbounded Place
The idea of boundaries seems an important one in understanding the experience of Forest
School. The preceding analysis strongly suggests that it is the unbounded nature of Forest
School which is fundamental to reported experiences of it; unbounded in two distinct but
mutually reinforcing senses. Firstly, the physical environment of the forest school site itself
is vast and literally without visible boundaries. The physical extent of the Forest School site
means that it is a place of unlimited possibilities. It is this “innate potentiality” (Olwig, 1989)
of the natural environment which seems to be particularly important to the forest school
experience for many children. Secondly it is unbounded social space where usual classroom
rules and behaviours do not apply. The unbounded nature of the physical environment is
reflected socially in the sense that the normal boundaries of rules and behaviour expected at
school do not apply. There are very particular rules and behaviours associated with forest
school but these contrast sharply in a number of ways with those expected in the classroom.
Firstly they are explicitly expressed by the session leader rather than implicit; something to
be worked out. As MacLure et al (2012) argue in the classroom “…children need to do
interpretative work to understand what they are expected to do, or refrain from doing”

13. (p.458). This is not the case at Forest School. Secondly they are concrete rather than abstract.
They relate to particular risks (getting burnt by the fire) and include specific instruction
(never walk in the fire circle); thirdly, they are consistent rather than changing.
We want to suggest that the physical and the social unboundedness are mutually constitutive
and can be experienced as a virtuous cycle, particularly by children who find the imposed
boundaries of school challenging. However, the reverse can be true. For some, the removal
of known physical boundaries is experienced as a threat rather than an opportunity and Forest
School is equated with a loss of control, purpose and order in both the physical and social
spheres. Equally, in some cases the dominance of pre-existing social relationships prove so
resilient and powerful that the physical place of Forest School has little impact.
5.2 Limits to the data
Whilst the above discussion starts to explore why Forest School might have such an impact
on children and their connections to themselves, each other and the physical environment it is
limited. The observations of the participating children which were at the heart of the data set
raise particular questions about what is seen and what remains unobserved. There were many
instances where examples of creativity and engagement observed by the research intern went
completely unnoticed in the teacher evaluation. This raises an important concern about
observation as a tool for evaluation. In spite of being asked to observe using the identified
Forest School aims as prompts, the focus for teacher observers was behaviour management
issues. This highlights the truism that who you are affects what you see. There were benefits
from teaching staff taking on the role of observers but more guidance and support is needed.
Recommendation 5: To provide more targeted observation sheets for teaching staff and
to spend time briefing/debriefing and discussing observations.

14. 6. Summary of recommendations
Recommendation 1: To target classes making an educational transition emphasising the
socio-emotional benefits of Forest School.
Recommendation 2: To develop a baseline assessment of ‘connectedness with nature’ to be
used before children engage with a Forest School Programme. Also to continue to collect
data beyond the Forest School sessions themselves to be able to document what happens back
at school and beyond in the children’s home lives.
Recommendation 3: To develop an extended Forest School Programme (12 weeks+) with
documented benefits for schools to offer as an alternative to the 6 week programme
Recommendation 4: Develop targeted CPD session to explore the curricula connections
either by phase (KS1, 2, Foundation) or by subject area (particularly focusing upon the prime
subjects of mathematics, literacy and science).
Recommendation 5: To provide more targeted observation sheets for teaching staff and to
spend time briefing/debriefing and discussing observations.

15. 7. References
Christian, H. Zubrick, S., Foster, S., Giles-Corti, B., Bull, F., Wood, L., Knuiman, M.,
Brinkman, S, Houghton, S & Boruff, B. (2015) The influence of neighbourhood physical
environment on early childhood health and development: A review and call for research.
Health and Place 33 25-36
Christensen, Mygind & Bentsen (2014) Conceptions of place: approaching space, children
and physical activity. Children’s Geographies DOI: 10.1080/14733285.2014.927052
Clark, A (2007) Views from inside the shed: young children’s perspective of the outdoor
environment. Education 3-13 35:4 349-363
Davies, B. and Waite, S. (2005) Forest Schools: An Evaluation of Opportunities and
Challenges in Early Years. Plymouth: University of Plymouth.
Fjortoft (2004) Landscape as playscape: the effects of natural environments on children’s
play and motor development. Child Youth Environment 14 (2) 21-44
Kemp, N (2014) Executive report of the Academic Business Partnership with Kent Wildlife
Trust. Unpublished report.
Kenny, R. (2010) Involve, Enjoy, Achieve: Forest School and the Early Years Foundation
Stage: An Exploratory Case Study. Bath: Bath Spa University.
Kraftl, P. (2015) Geographies of alternative education: Diverse learning spaces for children
and young people. Bristol: Polity Press.
MacLure, M., Jones, L. , Holmes, R. & MacRae, C. (2012) Becoming a problem: behaviour
and reputation in the early years classroom, British Educational Research Journal 38 (3) 447-
471
Maynard, T (2007) Forest Schools in Great Britain: an initial exploration Contemporary
Issues in Early Childhood 8:4 pp.320-331
McCree & McCree (2012) Brief history of the roots of Forest School in the UK. Horizons
(60) Winter 2012
Murray, R. (2003) Forest School Evaluation Project: A Study in Wales. London: New
Economics Foundation.
O’Brien, L & Murray, R. (2007) Forest School and its impacts on young children: Case
studies in Britain. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, Vol.6(4), pp.249-265
O’Brien, L (2009) ‘Learning outdoors: the Forest School approach’ Education 3-13 37:1
pp.45-60
Olwig (1989) The Childhood Deconstruction of Nature. Children's Environments Quarterly,
Vol. 6, No. 1, Children and Vegetation (Spring 1989), pp. 19-25
Preston, L. (2014) Student imaginings of spaces of learning in Outdoor Environmental
Education. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 14:2, 172-190,
DOI: 10.1080/14729679.2013.835167

16. Ridgers (2012) ‘Encouraging play in the natural environment: a child-focused case study of
Forest School’ Children’s Geographies 10:1 49-65
Silverman, D. (2013) Doing qualitative research. London: Sage
Storli, R. & Hagen, T. (2010) Affordances in outdoor environments and children’s physically
active play in pre-school. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 18:4 445-
456
Strife & Downey (2009) Childhood development and access to nature: a new direction for
environmental inequality research. Organisational Environment 22(1) 99-122